WA 1105 2019 LandAcquistion 2019

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
W.A.No.1105 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)

IN
W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019 (LA-KIADB)
C/W
IN
W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.No.35461 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

IN
2

IN
W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB),

IN

IN

IN
W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 &
20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.Nos.40473-474 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

IN

IN
W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017 (LA-KIADB),

IN
W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB),

IN
3

IN
W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB),
W.P.No.52298 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)
IN W.A. No.1105 OF 2019

IN W.P.Nos.11209-212 of 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. S. JALAJA
W/O N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT KUVEMPU NAGARA
"SUKADA NILAYA"
TUMAKOORU-572102.
2. SRI. SIDDAPPA
S/O KARIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT KOLALUKUNTE
KORA HOBLI, HALDODDRI POST
TUMAKOORU TALUK AND DIST-572127.
3. SRI. KARIBASAVAIAH
S/O KARIYANNA
4
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

R/AT KOLALUKUNTE, KORA HOBLI
HALDODDRI POST
TUMAKOORU TALUK AND DIST-572128.
4. SRI. DODDA CHINNAPPA

S/O MELGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT THIPPEDASARAHALLI
KORA HOBLI, HALDODDERI POST
TUMAKOORU TQ AND DIST-572128.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADV.,)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
KRISHI BHAVAN
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD
NEW DELHI-110001
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR BEEDI
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT

BOARD, IV & V FLOORS, EAST WING
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER- NIMZ

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MARUTHI TOWERS, IST FLOOR
NEXT TO SIT COLLEGE
5
B H ROAD
TUMAKURU-572102.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W
SRI.B.B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R3 & R4
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R1
SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
05/04/2019 IN WP NOS.11209-212/2019 [LA-KIADB] PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE
SAID WP NOS.11209-212/2019 [LA-KIADB] AS PRAYED FOR.
IN W.A.No.2392 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB)
NO.3/2, KHENI BUILDING
1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 009.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
(KIADB), 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
1. SRI. MANJU
S/O LATE MALLESHIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.284
6
HALAGEVARDERAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 098.
2. SMT. NALINI
W/O OF SRI. MANJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.284
HALAGEVARDERAHALLI
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560 098.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA CHANNAPATNA URBAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13.10.2015
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R3 & R4

SRI. K.L. ASHOK, ADV., FOR R1 & R2)
-----
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION 41641-462/2015 DATED 19/4/17.
7
IN W.A.No.4053 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016
BETWEEN

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3, 1ST CROSS, KENI BUILDING
3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560009.
2. THE SECRETARY
ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE DIVISION
NO.3, 1ST CROSS, KENI BUILDING
3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560009.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SRI. R. NARAYANA
SON OF LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT MEDIHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARA HALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE SECRETARY
M. S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
8
4. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
5. THE SECRETARY
BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY
AND SEWERAGE BOARD
CAUVERY BHAVAN
K. G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADV., FOR R4
SMT. SUMANGALA SIMI MATH, ADV., FOR
SRI. I.G. GACHCHINAMATH, ADV., FOR R5
R1, R2, R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-----
THE WRIT PETITION 2907/2015 & 46915/2016 DATED
19/04/2017.
IN W.A.No.4054 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF 2014
BETWEEN

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
9
AND
1. J. VENKATESH REDDY
S/O GURUMURTHY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT. JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. SHIVAPRABU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2
R3 SERVED)
-----
IN W.A.No.4055 OF 2017
IN W.P.No.35461 OF 2014
BETWEEN

KIADB NO.14/3
ARAVINDA BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-01.
...APPELLANT
10
AND
1. R. VENKATESH
S/O LATE V. RAMAIAH
AGED 62 YEARS
R/AT KUMBARA PET
MALUR TOWN

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE-1.
3. THE UNDER SECRETARY

INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R3
R2 SERVED)
-----
THE WRIT PETITION 35461/2014 DATED 19/04/2017.
IN W.A.No.4056 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

III AND IV FLOORS, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER.
11
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-I

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MAHARSHI ARVIND BHAVAN
IST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 002.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. MR. H.S. SOMASHEKAR

SON OF H SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT #971, 11TH B MAIN
III BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE RAJEEV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF

HEALTH SCIENCES, KARNATAKA
IV T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 041
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV., FOR
SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3
12
SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R4

R2 SERVED)
-----
IN W.A.No.4057 OF 2017
IN W.P.No.32416 OF 2015
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. SRI. P. VENUGOPAL
S/O P. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O MAHATHE, NO.72/1
3RD MAIN, 16TH CROSS
G D PARK EXTENSION
VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE-560 003.
2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
NO.49, SOUTH BLOCK
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
13
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAI M. PATIL, ADV., FOR R1
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R4
V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R3 IS
ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)
-----
IN W.A.No.4058 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013
BETWEEN

BANGALORE-560 001.

BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SMT. K. PREMALATHA
W/O C. SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
14
2. SRI. SRINIVASAPPA
S/O NANJAPPA
3. SRI. GANGANA BOVI

S/O GANGANA BOVI
4. SRI. K M DODDAPPAIAH
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
5. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O DODDASIDDANNA
6. SRI. MUNIRAMAIAH
S/O MUNIVENKATANNA BOVI
7. SRI. BODAPPA
S/O GANGANA BOVI
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE

R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE
8. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
BANANAHALLIL POST
MALLUR TALUK

VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001.
15

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
M.S. BUILDING
BANGALROE 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR M, ADV., FOR R1 AND R4 TO R6
R2, R3, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R9
AND R10 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)
-----
THE WRIT PETITION 49228/2013 & 50925-50936/2013 DATED
19/04/2017.
IN W.A.No.4059 OF 2017
IN W.P.No.30920 OF 2013
BETWEEN
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1ST FLOOR
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O MANJUNATHA
16
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

DEAD, REP. BY LR'S.
1(a) SRI. MANJUNATH N

S/O LATE NANJAPPA
1(b) SMT. SOUMYA

W/O PRAKASH
D/O MANJUNATH N
1(c) SRI. SAGUN M

S/O MANJUNATH N
ALL ARE R/AT. HUSKUR VILLAGE

BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
----
17
IN W.A.No.4060 OF 2017
IN W.P.No.18861 OF 2013
BETWEEN
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KIADB NO 14/3
ARAVINDA BHAVANA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 01.
...APPELLANT
AND
1. SHRI. M.R. ASHWATHAPPA

S/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
MINDAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALURU TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT -563101.

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, BANGALORE - 560001.
3. THE UNDER SECRETARY

INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.H. SOMASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R1
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
----
18
IN W.A.No.4061 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 &
20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013
BETWEEN

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE-506 001.

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SRI. J. SIDDAPPA
S/O APPAYYANNA
2. SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA
S/O J. SIDDAPPA
3. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O MOTAPPA
4. SRI. GANGANNA BHOVI

S/O NARAYANA BHOVI
19
5. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O KRISHNAPPA
6. SRI. APPANNA
S/O MUNIVENAKTAPPA
7. SRI. K.M. DODDAPPAIAH

S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
8. SRI. MALLEGOWDA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
9. SMT. M. JAYALAKSHMI
D/O MALLEGOWDA
10. SMT. M. PADMA

D/O MALLEGOWDA
11. SMT. M. VIJAYALAKSHMI

D/O MALLEGOWDA
12. SRI. MUNIRAJU .M

S/O MALLEGOWDA
13. SRI. M. LAKSHMINARAYAN

S/O MALLEGOWDA
14. SMT. NARAYANAMMA

W/O LATE RAMANAIKA
20
15. SRI. M. SIDDAPPA

S/O MALLAPPA
16. SRI. M. MANJUNATH

S/O MALLAPPA
17. SRI. N. GOPALAPPA

S/O NARAYANAPPA
18. SRI. CHANDRACHARI

S/O RAMACHANDRACHARI
19. SRI. S. KRISHNA SINGH

S/O SEETHARAM SINGH
APPELLANTS ARE ALL R/AT

JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE

VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, M.S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-506 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV., FOR R1 TO R5 & R8 TO R19

R6, R7 AND R20 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-----
21
THE WRIT PETITION 20367-373/2013 & 20375-380/2013 &

20382/2013 & 20384-388/2013 DATED 19/04/2017.
IN W.A.No.4062 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.40473-474 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN
I FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 002.
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NO.49, III & IV FLOORS
KHANIJ BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE SATHAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT VRISHABAHVATHI PURA
ITTAMADU PO, BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001.
22
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADV., FOR R1
V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
R2 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)
-----
THIS WRIT IS APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
IN W.A.No.4063 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2

NO.49, V FLOOR, KHANIJ BHAVAN
EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001.

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
EXECUTIVE MEMBER
NOW REP. BY SPL. DC.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. CHIKKA HANUMAIAH
S/O LATE GANGA HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O ARASINAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
23
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.641

8TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560072.
2. P.M. SIDDAPPA
S/O MAHESWARAPPA
3. P.M. DIWAKAR SANKOL

S/O MAHESWARAPPA
RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE

R/AT PILLE KARANAHALLI VILLAGE
M D HALLI POST , KASABA HOBLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR R1
R2, R3 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-----
IN W.A.No.4064 OF 2017
IN W.P.No.859 OF 2016
BETWEEN
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
MARUTHI GROUP BUILDING
II FLOOR, NEAR SIT COLLEGE
B H ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 103.
24
...APPELLANT
AND
S. NARAYANAPPA
AGE 53 YEARS
S/O SEETHARAMAIAH
RESIDING AT SANTHEPETE
SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572103.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA, SERVED)
-----
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19/4/17 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 859/2016.
IN W.A.No.4065 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017
BETWEEN

NIMZ, MARUTHI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR
B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101.
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
NOW BY ITS SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
S.N. BALACHANDRA.
...APPELLANTS
25
AND
1. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O NELAHALA (POST)
BELLAVI HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128.
2. SRI. H. PRABHANNA
S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O DEVENAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI
NELAHAL(POST)
3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O NELAHALA (POST)
BELLAVI HOBLI
4. SRI. SEEBE GOWDA

S/O BASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O HUNJINAL, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 128.
5. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA
S/O THIMMAVVA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O NELAHALA (P), BELLAVI HOBLI
6. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH
S/O H. ERANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O SY.NO.11/10, NELAHALA (POST)
BELLAVI HOBLI
26
7. SRI. GANGADHARAIAH
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT. NELAHALA (POST), BELLAVI HOBLI
8. SRI. KENCHAIAH
S/O HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST)
BELLAVI HOBLI
9. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT. NELAHALA (POST)
BELLAVI HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128
10. SRI. G K LAKSHMANNA
S/O LATE KOTE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT. NELAHALA (POST)
BELLAVI HOBLI
11. SRI. GAVIYAPPA

S/O LATE KOTE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
BELLAVI HOBLI
12. SMT. LAKKAMMA

W/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
BELLAVI HOBLI
13. SRI. A G BASAVARAJAIAH

S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
27
R/O CHIKKASEEBI, BELLAVI HOBLI

14. SMT. DODDATHAYAMMA

W/O DODDAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O NELAHAL(POST), BELLAVI HOBLI
15. SRI. VASANT A. GOWDA

S/O K V ADINARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.27, JAKKUR
YALAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 064.
16. SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH

S/O LATE BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O NELAHALA (POST), BELLAVI HOBLI
17. SRI. THIMMAIAH

S/O LATE DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O KEMPADALI VILLAGE
HAL DODDERI POST, KORA HOBLI
18. THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY

MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND
RESOURCES, NEW DELHI-110 001.
19. THE UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
NEW DELHI-110 003.

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
28

STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
22. THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL CELL)

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
23. THE KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
BENGALURU-560 001.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V.C.O. DATED 26.9.2016)
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAJAGOPAL, ADV., FOR R2, R6 AND R15
SRI. D.C. PRAKASH, ADV., FOR R6
SRI. M.N. KUMAR SHARMA, ADV., FOR R18 & R19
SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R20 TO R22
R3, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R13, R14, R16 ARE SERVED
AND UNREPRESENTED)

IN W.A.No.4066 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015
BETWEEN

OFFICER - 2, KHANIJA BHAVAN

DEVELOPMENT BOARD
KHANIJ BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
29
BANGALORE - 560 001

AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DC.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. MR. AJITH KUMAR D R

SON OF LATE D R RADHAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDENT OF # 295
GROUND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN
12TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR
II BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560011.

VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADV., FOR R1

IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE)
-----
IN W.A.No.4067 OF 2017
IN W.P.No.17272 OF 2014
BETWEEN

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
30
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB)

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, (KIADB), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REP. BY SPL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
APPELLANT NO.3 IS REP. BY APPELLANT NO.1.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O JALIGE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT AREBINNAMANGALA
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER

SRI. KIRAN, S/O ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.444, BAGALUR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
BANGALORE-562 149.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.

31
VIAKASA SOUDHA
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK
…RESPONDENTS
-----
IN W.A.No.4068 OF 2017
IN W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 OF 2013
BETWEEN
1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
NOW REP. BY SLAO-1.

KIADB, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-01.
...APPELLANTS
AND
1. SRI. NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE DODDA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE
32

KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.106, 1ST FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.

KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101.
…RESPONDENTS

V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3
-----
THE WRIT PETITION 18890/2013 & 23750-752/2013 DATED
19/04/2017.
IN W.P.No.55704 OF 2017
BETWEEN
1. UDAYA SHANKARA
S/O SHYAMA RAO
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT MADHU NIVASA
AGARADAKODI, PERMUDE POST
MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.
2. SMT. VASANTHI .S RAO

D/O SETHUMADHAVAN PEJATHAYA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT"HARIPRASAD"
PERMUDE POST
33
3. HENRY FERNANDIZ
S/O BENJAMIN FERNANDIZ
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHENOYKODI MANE
PERMUDE POST
4. SMT. AGNES D. SOUZA

D/O PAUL FERNANDIZ
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT LAVI NILAYA
PERMUDE POST
5. FELIX NAZERATH
S/O AMBOZE NAZERATH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHENOY KODIMANE
PERMUDE POST
6. OLWIN ARUN MENEZES

S/O ROSARIO MENEZES
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHENOY KODI
PERMUDE POST
7. ROSARIO MEMEZES
D/O PAUL MEMEZES
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHENOY KODI
PERMUDE POST, BAJPE
MANGALURU DISTRICT 574509.
8. LANCY QUADROS
D/O CYRIL QUADROS
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT ASHIRVAD PANCHAYATH ROAD
PERMUDE POST
34
9. LAWRENCE FALVIAN D'CUNHA

D/O LATE SEBASTIAN BAPTIST D'CUNHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2-130
"CHRIS FARM HOSUE"
PERMUDE POST
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.,)
AND
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALOE 560001.

REP BY ITS ADDITIAIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
4. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE

REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF
INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE
II FLOOR, KHANIJABHAVAN
(SOUTH WING), NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001.

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
DEPUTY COMMISSINOER'S OFFICE
HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001.

35
BYKAMPADY, MANGALROE 575011.
7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECKUTIVE OFFICER
& EM, III & IV FLOOR, KHAIJA BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560001.
8. THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
URVA STORES, KOTTARA
MANGALURU-575006.
9. KARNTAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PARISARABHAVAN, CHURCH STREET
BENGALURU-560001.
10. THE UNION OF INDIA

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (MoEF, GOI)
PARYAWARABHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX
LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
11. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C.G.O.COMPLEX
LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
12. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
POST KUTHETHOOR, VIA. KATIPLALLA
MANGALORE-575030.
….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R6 & R7
SRI. NATARAJU T, ADV., FOR R9
SMT. K.S. GIRIJAMMA, ADV., FOR R11
SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADV., FOR R12
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV., FOR R8
SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV., FOR R9
36
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R10)

-----
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF
NOTIFICATIONS PRODUCED AT ANNEX-C, C1 AND C2.
QUASH/DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016
UNDER SEC. 3(1) AT ANNEX-C, THE NOTIFICATION DATED
20.12.2016 UNDER SEC. 1(3) OF THE KIADB ACT 1966 AT ANNEX-
C1 AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED UNDER
SEC. 28(1) AT ANNEX-C2 AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE POWERS OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ALSO IS IN VIOLATION
OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
ALSO ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE " RIGHT TO
FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 " (CENTRAL ACT
30 OF 2013).
IN W.P.No.19222 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. CARMIN SEQUEIRA
D/O LAZARAS PATRICH SEQUIRA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT 'PINTU SADAN'
YERMADY HOUSE
THENKAYAKKA VILLAGE AND POST
PERMUDE, MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.
2. PRABHAKAR BHAT
S/O LATE NARAYANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NAVIGUTTU, KUTTEETHOOR
BAJAVU POST, MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.
3. GURUPRASAD
S/O RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT TINNIKEREMANE
PERMUDE POST
4. VILFRED PAVLA D SOUZA

37
S/O MARKEVEREST D SOUZA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT DEVASTANA KODI MANE
PERMUDE POST
5. PETER CYPRIAN D SOUZA

S/O SALVADORE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT ROSARIO MOUNT HOUSE
PERMUDE POST
6. VITTAL MOULYA
S/O SANKU MOULYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT DEVAS HOUSE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
7. KRISHNA SHETTY
S/O PUVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
8. GOPI SHETTY
S/O PUVA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
9. SANDEEPA
S/O SADANANDA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
38
10. BHASKAR SHETTY

S/O GANAPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
11. LEELA M. SHETTY

W/O MAHABALA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
12. RATNAKAR SHETTY

S/O RAMANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
13. PANDURANGA SHETTY

S/O KUTTY SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE
KUTHETHOOR POST
BAJAVAU POST
14. RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA

S/O LAKSHMI NARAYAN PEJATHAYA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT DURGA PRASAD NILAYA
THANNIKERE HOUSE
PERMUDE
15. JECINTA MIRANDA

39
D/O LATE ZOOVAM D SOUZA

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NEKKARE BALLE HOUSE
BAJPE, MANGALURU DISTRICT-574142.
16. MAGGI D SOUZA

D/O LEO D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT KATEELUR ROAD
PERMUDE MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509.
17. ROBERT FERNANDIS

S/O PAVLA FERNANDIS
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT LAVI NILAYA
PERMUDE POST
18. GEETHA
W/O JAYASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT PANJEKALLU MANE
KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST
19. DEEPAKSHETTY
D/O JAYASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT PANJEKALLU MANE
KUTHETHOOR
BAJAVAU POST
20. PRAMOD ALVA

S/O BHOJA ALVA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KARAMARA MANE
21. FATHER PETER CYPRIAN D SOUZA

S/O LUCY D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
40
R/AT KUTHETHOOR
BAJAVAU POST
22. RAMANANDA K. SHETTY

S/O KOOSA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT KALLOLLI BALIKE MANE
23. SAROJINI SHETTY

D/O NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT KALLOLLI BALIKE MANE
24. YOGESH SHETTY

S/O ANTHAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NOVI MANE
KALYANI NIVASA
25. RAVINDRA SHETTY

S/O KOCHAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NOVI MANE, KUTHETHOOR
BAJAVAU POST
26. SANTHOSH SHETTY

S/O SHEKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE
KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU PSOT
27. SHAILA SHETTY

D/O SHEKAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
41
R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE

28. RAJEEVI SHETTY

D/O CHARAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE
KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU PSOT
29. JAYA POOJARI

S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST
30. NEELAYA POOJARI

S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
31. SEETHARAMA SHASTRY

S/O LATE NARAYANA SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
32. WILMA D SOUZA

D/O ELIAS D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
33. SATHEESHA PEJATHAYA

S/O VANAJAKSHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST
34. GANESH POOJARI

S/O LATE SEENA POOJARI
42
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

35. OLWIN RODRIGUES

S/O LATE THOMOS MARCEL RODRIGUES
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.,)
AND
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.

REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
IST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
VIDHANASOUDAH
BANGALORE-560001.

REP BY MEMBER SECRETARY
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE
II FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING)
NO.49 RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001.

43
DAKSHINA KANANDA DISTRICT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001.

BYKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575011.
7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

& EM III & IV FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560001.

REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
URVA STORES, KOTTARA., MANGALURU-575006.
9. KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PARISARABHAVAN
CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONOMENT &
FORESTS (MOEF, GOL)
PARYAWARA BAHVAN
CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003.

PARYAVARANA BHAVAN
NEW DELHI-110003.
12. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETRO CHEMICALS LTD.,

REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
POST KUTHETHOOR, VIA KATIPLALLA
MANGALORE-575030.
….RESPONDENTS
44
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R6, R7 AND R12

SRI. MAYA HOLLA, ADV., FOR R12
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADV., FOR R8
SRI. S.R. DODAWAD, ADV., FOR R1
SMT. GIRIJAMMA K.S. ADV., FOR R11)
-----
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATIONS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURES-C, C1 AND C2. QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED
20.12.2016 UNDER SEC.3(1), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC.1(3) OF THE KIADB
ACT 1966, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C1 AND THE NOTIFICATION
DATED 20.12.2016 ISSUED UNDER SEC.28(1) PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C-2 AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE POWERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ALSO IS IN VIOLATION OF
ARTICLES 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO
ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE "RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 (CENTRAL ACT
30 OF 2013) & ETC.
IN W.P.No.22707 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. SHRI. BHOJA SHETTIGARA

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.
2. SMT. GIRIJA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA.
3. SHRI MOHINI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4. SMT HEMAVATHI
45
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

5. SMT. GULABI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 5 ARE

RESIDING AT PANJURLI KODI MANE
PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST
MANGALORE TALUK
D K DISTRICT PIN CODE: 574509.
6. SHRI. ANANTHA PADMANABHA BHAT

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT
RESIDING AT NOVIGUTHU HOUSE
BAJAVU POST, KUTHETHOOR
MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT.
7. SHRI VASU POOJARI

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.
8. SHRI. GANGAYYA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.
9. SMT. SUMATHI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI.
10. SMT. LEELA

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
11. SMT. VASANTHI

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

RESIDENTS OF THOTA MANE
POST PERMUDE, MANGALORE TALUK
46
D K DISTRICT - 574509.
12. SHRI. SRINIVASA PEJATHAYA

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA.
13. KRISHNAMURTHY PEJATHAYA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O SRI RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA
PETITIONERS NO.12 AND 13 ARE

RESIDING AT THANNIKER HOUSE
PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST
MANGALORE TALUK
14. SHRI. K H VARADARAJA

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA.
15. DR. NARAHARI DAS

AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
16. SHRI. GOVINDA DAS

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
17. SHRI. JAGANNATHA DAS

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

RESIDING AT GOVINDA BHAVANA
POST BAJAVU, KUTHETHOOR
MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT.
18. SHRI. SEETHARAMA SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. RAMAYYA SHETTY.
19. SHRI. JAGANNATH SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
47
S/O LATE SRI. RAMAYYA SHETTY.

RESIDING AT MATHRU KRIPA HOUSE
AMBADE GURI, BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHOOR, MANGALORE TALUK
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADV.,)
AND
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE 2ND FLOOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN
NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. DEPUTY COMISSIONER
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU - 575001.

4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

48
BAIKAMPADI, MANGALORE - 575011.
7. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PARISARA BHAVAN, CHURCH STREET
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
8. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
PARISARA BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003
9. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,

KUTHETHOOR POST, VIA KATIPLALLA
MANGALORE - 575030
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R6 & R9 & R5
SRI. S. ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADV., FOR R8
SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADV., FOR R9
SRI. C.M. POONACHA, ADV., FOR R3)
-----

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ARE ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14, 19, 21 & 300A OF
THE CONSTITUTION & REPUGNANT TO RIGHT TO THE FAIR
COMPENSATION & TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION & RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AND HENCE
INOPERABLE.
IN W.P.No.30905 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. SCM DATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

(EARLIER CALLED BLACK ROCK INFO SYSTEMS
PRIVATE LIMITED) (A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
49
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS

OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1-11-252/5/A
PLOT NO.156, MOTILAL NEHRU NAGAR
BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD - 500016
TELANGANA STATE
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PERSON
SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA
S/O MADAN LAL SHARMA
2. INFOSAGE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

(A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS
OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956)
REGISTERED OFFICE AT SREE NIVAS
PLOT NO 258, ROAD NO 72, PRASASHAN NAGAR
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500033
TELANGANA STATE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED PERSON
SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA
S/O MADAN LAL SHARMA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VISHWANATH H.M. ADV.,)
AND
M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001, BANGALORE CITY
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KIADB
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001, BENGALURU CITY
BY ITS EXEUCTIVE MEMBER.

KIADB, KHENY BUILDING
GANDHINAGAR
50
BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY.
4. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA

BANGALORE, BENGALURU CITY
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5. M/S. TECHZONE TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

NO.44/4/4/, DISTRICT FUND ROAD
JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560069
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SHRI. KUPPURAJU BENGALURU CITY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R2 & R3
SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADV., FOR R5
R1 & R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
------
CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTIFICATION DATED 01.12.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(1), 1(3) AND SECTION 28(1) OF
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
IN W.P.No.12283 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1. VIJAYA
D/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
2. AMBIKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
PERMUDE
51
MANGALURU-574509
3. NIRMALA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
4. KESHAVA
S/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
5. MARIYA D CUNHA
D/O. LATE WALTER D CUNHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6. MABEL D CUNHA
W/O. LATE S.B. D CUNHA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
7. KENNY D CUNHA
W/O. LATE S.B. D CUNHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
8. MELVIN D CUNHA
W/O. LATE S B D CUNHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT CHURCH BUILDINGS
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
9. JULIET CORDA
D/O. THOMOS RODRIGUS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT CORDA VILLA
KALTHUR POST & VILLAGE
UDUPI
52
10. JANET ANDRADE

S/O. THOMOS RODRIGUS
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT PELATHA LATTE HOUSE
BELMAV POST
PERMUDE
MANGALURU
11. OZY RODRIGUS

D/O. THOMOS RODRIGUS
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT MITHRA KANDA HOUSE
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
12. GRETTA D SOUZA

D/O. THOMOS RODRGUS
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANAPADY HOUSE
NEAR BRIDGE MANAPADY
MULKI
MANGALURU
13 . INDIRA
D/O. NARAYANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
RESIDING AT NOVI GUTTHU
KUTHETHAOOR POST
BAJAVU POST
MANGALURU
14. SMT. VARADA

D/O. NARAYANA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
RESIDING AT SR VARADASA POST
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
15. PRASHANTH
S/O. ASHOKA MAYYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT HARI PRASAD HOUSE
PERMUDE POST
53
MANGALURU-574509
16. METILDA ALPHONSA

D/O. SOLIVADRE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT BETKERI HOUSE
MOODBIDRI POST
MANGALURU
17. VALERIEN STONEY D SOUZA

D/O. LATE SALVODORE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT ROSARY MOUNT
PERMUDE POST
MANGALURU-574509
18. EVLOLIA HILDA ROSERIO

D/O. LATE SALVODORE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT ROSARY HOUSE
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
19. JACINTHA SOPHIC D SOUZA

D/O. LATE SOLVODERE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT ROSARY MOUNT
PERMUDE POST
MANGALURU-574509
20. MARY D SOUZA

D/O. LATE SOLVODORE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
RESIDING AT ROSARY HOUSE
PERMUDE POST
MANGALURU-574509
21. MARY JULIANA D SOUZA

D/O. GABRIAL ALFONSE D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2-108
SENAVAKODI MANE
C/O ANANDA MARIAN D SOUZA
54
PERMUDE POST
MANGALURU-574509
22. LAWERENCE D SOUZA

S/O. MAGDHALIN D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUDIYANA MANE
PERMUDE POST
MANGALURU-524509
23. YAMUNA
W/O. LATE ROHIT POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT BALPE GURI HOUSE
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
24. YAMUNA
D/O. LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT BALPA GURI HOUSE
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
25. VASANTHI
S/O. LATE RAMAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
26. GEETHA J. SALIAN

D/O. LATE RAGHU POOJARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
PERMUDE
MANGALURU-574509
27. PHILOMENA D SOUZA

S/O. LATE ELIAS D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHENARA KODI HOUSE
PERMUDE
BAJPE
55
MANGALURU-574509
28. SHALINI D SOUZA

D/O. LATE ELIAS D SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESIDING AT SHENARA KODI HOUSE
PERMUDE, BAJPE
MANGALURU-574509
29. LALITHA SHETTY

D/O. KOKRA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030
30. CHANDRAKALA
D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU
31. RATHNAKALA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU
32. AMRUTHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU
56
33. KISHORE
S/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575030
34. SHASHIKALA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575030
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
AND
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA OSUDHA
BENGALURU-560001

REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
IST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001

REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
57
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES &

COMMERCE
II FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
(SOUTH WING) NO.49
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
HAMILTON CIRCLE
MANGALURU-575001

BYKAMPADY
MANGALURU-575011

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EM
III & IV FLOOR
KHANIJA BHAVAN(SOUTH WING)
BENGALURU-560001

REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER
URVA STORES, KOTTARA
MANGALURU-575006
9. KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PARISARA BHAVAN
CHURCH STREET
BENGALURU-560001

MINISTRY O ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS
(MOEF, GOI)
PARYAWARAN BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-110003
58

PARYAVARAN BHAVAN
C G O COMPLEX, LODI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003
12. MANGALURU REFINERY AND PETRO CHEMICALS LTD

REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
POST KUTHETHOOR
VIA KATIPLALLA
MANGALURU-575030
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVAS, ADVOCTE FOR R10 AND R11
SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7
SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE FOR R8
SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R9
SRI. H.C. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12)
-----
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF NOTIFICATIONS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C, C1, C2
AND QUASH/DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED
20.12.2016 UNDER DEC.3(1), PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2016 UNDER SEC.1(3) OF THE KAID
ACT 1966, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C1 AND THE NOTIFICATION
DTD20.12.2016 ISSUED UNDER SEC.28(1) PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C2 AS ULTRA VIRES OF THE POWERS OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ALSO IS VIOLATION OF
ARTICLES, 14, 19, 21 AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND
ALSO ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 (CENTRAL ACT
30/2013).
59
IN W.P.No.27081 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1. SMT. GRACY D'SOUZA

W/O. BERNARD D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
C/O. SRI. RONY D'SOUZA
NEKKAREBALLE HOUSE
PERMUDE VILLAGE & POST
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-574509.
2. SMT. JAYANTHI
W/O. SUNDARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
3. SRI. SATISH SHETTY

S/O. LATE SRI BHOJA SHETTY AND LATE PRABHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
4. SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY

S/O. LATE SRI BHOJA SHETTY AND LATE PRABHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
5. SMT. SANDHYA SHETTY

D/O. RAJU SHETTY AND LATE ASHALATHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
6. SMT. VIDYA
D/O. RAJU SHETTY AND LATE ASHALATHA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

RESIDING AT KODAPPA BALIKE
BAJAVU POST
KUTHETHOOR
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT-575030.
...PETITIONERS
60
(BY SRI. CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE)
AND
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE
2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560001
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE
HAMILTON CIRCLE
MANGALURU-575001.

4TH & 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

BAIKAMPADI
MANGALURU-575011.
7. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PARISARA BHAVAN, CHURCH STREET
BENGALURU-560001
61
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
8. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
PARISARA BHAVAN
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-110003
9. MANGALURU REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD

KUTHETHOOR POST
VIA KATIPALLA
MANGALURU-575030
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7
SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R9
SRI. BIRDYAIYAPPA, CGC FOR R8)
-----
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ARE ULTRA VIRES ARTICLE 14, 19, 21 AND 300A
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND REPUGNANT TO RIGHT TO THE FAIR
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND HENCE
INOPERABLE.
IN W.P.No.49536 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI. M.K. SWAMY GOWDA

S/O. KEMPEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO. 428.
7TH-A-MAIN,
HEBBAL I STAGE,
METAGALLI POST,
MYSURU 16,
62
(SITE NO. 304, SURVEY NO. 49)
2. SRI. THIPPEGOWDA
S/O. CHIKKANNA,
RESIDING AT NO. 60.
2ND MAIN,
LOKANAYAKA NAGAR,
HEBBAL I STAGE,
METAGALLI POST,
MYSURU 16,
3. SRI. SHEKARAPPA
S/O. KESHAVAIAH,
II MAIN ROAD,
I STAGE, HEBBAL,
MYSURU 16,
4. SRI. B.RAJAKUMAR
S/O GOREGOWDA,
RESIDING AT YELEKERE VILLAGE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.313, SURVEY NO.49)
5. SRI. M.N. RAMU

S/O LATE NAGE GOWDA,
RESIDING AT M.SHETTY HALLI,
K.SETTY HALLI HOBLI,
S.R.PATTANA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
(SITE NO.329 SURVEY NO.49)
6. SRI.G.UMESH RAO
S/O. GANESH RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.54, I MAIN
VIKRANT GUEST HOUSEE,
OPP. NIRMALA CONVENT
VONTIKOPPAL
MYSURU-16
(SITE NO.330, SURVEY NO.49)
63
7. SMT. SRISHAILA
C/O. B.R.SHIVASHANKAR,
RESIDING AT RAGI BOMMANA HALLI
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
8. SRI.R.SRIKANTA
S/O. R.RUDRAPPA
RESIDING AT NO.49, 2ND MAIN,
YADAVAGIRI,
MYSURU-20
9. SRI. B.MANJUNATHA
S/O. BOREGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.177, 5TH CROSS,
HEBBAL, II STAGE, MYSURU-17
(SITE NO.340/A. SURVEY NO.49)
10. SRI.S.A.LAKSHME GOWDA

S/O. ANKEGOWDA,
R/AT NO.195, 8TH MAIN,
HEBBAL I STAGE, METAGALLI POST,
MYSURU-16
(SITE NO.342/B, SURVEY NO.49)
11. SRI.T.SRINIVASA
S/O. THIRUMALE GOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.744, III STAGE,
HEBBAL, METAGALLI POST,
MYSURU-16
12. SRI. N. SRIKANTA MURTHY

S/O. NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.198/B, 5TH CROSS
NIMISHAMBHA LAYOUT
KUVEMPUNAGARA
MYSURU
64
13. SMT. SUJATHA A SETTY

D/O ANKA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.146, 2ND CROSS
ROOPANAGAR BOGADI
MYSURU(SITE NO.354, SURVEY NO.49)
14. S G SHIVAKUMAR
S/O M K GOWDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.18/B, 2ND A CROSS
4TH MAIN, V V MOHALLA
MYSURU-2
(SITE NO.365, SURVEY NO.88/1)
15. MANJU
S/O RACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.366, MUNESWARA SWAMY LAYOUT
MOOGARAHALLI
SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK
MANDYA DIST
(SITE NO.366 SURVEY NO.88/1)
16. NASEER AHAMED

S/O SHEK AHAMAD KHASIM
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.548, WEST PARK AVENUE
HOSANAGAR, BOGADI
MYSURU-26
17. K. GOVINDARAJU
S/O. KULLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT PALLAHALLI
SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK
MANDYA DIST
18. M R KESHAVA PRASAD

S/O S RANGANATHA
65
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.289, 7TH A MAIN
HEBBAL I STAGE
METAGALLI POST
MANDYA DIST
19. M B KRISHNE GOWDA

S/O BORE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.628, 3RD CROSS
HEBBAL 2ND STAGE
MYSURU-17
20. MOGANNA
S/O GURU SHANTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.309,
LOKAYANAK NAGARA,
NEAR GANAPATHI DEVASTANA,
HEBBAL, MYSURU
21. LOKESHACHAR
S/O KEMPACHAR,
RESIDING AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE,
K SHETTY HALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
22. THIPPEGOWDA
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.60, 2ND A MAIN,
LOKANAYAKA NAGARA,
HEBBAL MYSURU -16
(SITE NO.386,. SURVEY NO.88/1)
66
23. P N KIRANA KUMAR

S/O P S NAGABHUSHANA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.104,
3RD A MAIN,
III STAGE,
SOUTH OF KUMBARA KOPPALU,
MYSURU-16
24. SRI. BHADREGOWDA

W/O SHIVANAGE GOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.27/27,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
NEAR POST OFFICE GOTTIGERE,
BENGALURU SOUTH
25. SMT SAROJAMMA

W/O LATE SRI MANJU,
MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION,
KUMBARAKOPPAL,
MYSURU-16
(SITE NO 393, SURVEY NO.88/1)
26. SRI B A RAMACHANDRA

S/O LATE APPU GOWDA,
AGED 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.224,
GARAGE ROAD,
KAVERI EXTENSION,
KUMBARAKOPPAL TOLLGATE,
MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.332, SY NO.49)
27. SRI K C PEMMAIAH

S/O LATE K B CHANGAPPA,
RESIDING AT NO.383,
I BLOCK,
2/2 MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR,
67
MYSURU-22
(SITE NO.384. SY NO.88/1)
28. SRI P S RAMAKRISHNA

S/O LATE SHIVAPPA,
RESIDING AT PHALAHALLI VILLAGE,
BHALAGHOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
MANDYA (SITE NO.392, SY NO. 88/1)
29. SRI Y B ESHWARA

S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
NO.222, 6TH CROSS,
MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION,
KUMBARAKOPPAL,
30. SRI S BASAVARAJ

S/O LATE SIDDAYYA,
RESIDING AT NO.2847/13C,
8TH CROSS,
3RD MAIN,
JAYANAGAR,
MYSURU- (SITE NO.303, SY NO.49)
31. SMT LAKSHMAMMA

W/O K N MANJU GOWDA,
RESIDING AT 720,
IST MAIN,
15TH CROSS,
B M SRINAGAR,
METAGALLI, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.331, SY NO.49)
32. SRI M N SHASHIDHAR

S/O LATE M S NAGARAJ SHETTY,
RESIDING AT 531,
NEW KHATHA NO.41,
DWARAKAMAIE,
68
CHALUVAMBA AGRAHARA,
MYSURU (SITE NO.297, SY NO.49)
33. SMT JAYAMMA

W/O LATE S V RAMEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.716, SUBHASH NAGAR,
CHAMUNDESHWARI EXTENSION,
KUMBAR KOPPAL,
MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.309,. SY NO.49)
34. SRI L RAJU

S/O LATE LAKSHMANNA,
NO.2215, SEC,
VIKRANTH TYRES,
MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.380, SY NO.88/1)
35. SRI J RAMA SWAMY

S/O LATE M N JAWARE GOWDA,
VIJAYANAGAR RAILWAY EXTENSION,
36. SRI H N PARAMESH

S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS,
MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, OPP CIPET COLLEGE,
MYSURU-16, (SITE NO.370, SY NO.88/1)
37. SRI H MANCHAPPA

S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
NO.2496,
VINAYAKA NAGAR,
PADUVARAHALLI,
DEVARAJ MOHALLA,
MYSURU-02 (SITE NO.369, SY NO.88./1)
38. SRI B S LAKSHMIPATHI

S/O LATE B R SRINIVAS,
69

NO.2866, LASHKAR MOHALLA,
HALLADA KERI,
39. SRI B M NAGAMALLESH

S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
4TH CROSS,
VENE SHESHANNA ROAD,
MYSURU-04, (SITE NO.350, SY NO.49)
40. SRI M MAHADEVA SHETTY

S/O LATE MADHA SHETTY,
RESIDING AT NO.EWS, 3RD MAIN,
HEBBAL IST STAGE,
41. SRI V KHODANDA RAMA

S/O LATE VENKATRAME GOWDA,
RESIDING AT KENNALU VILLAGE,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT
(SITE NO.293, SY NO.49)
42. SRI P T KURIYAN

S/O LATE THOMAS,
EMPLOYEE NO.2143,
SEC,
VIKRANTH TYRES (J K TYRES)
MYSURU-16, (SITE NO.326, SY NO.49)
43. SRI DEVID C S

S/O LATE F DEVID,
NO.132/B,
CHIKKA VERRANNA ROAD,
BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU-10
70
44. SRI M A CHUNCHE GOWDA

S/O LATE AMAVASE GOWDA,
RESIDING AT BYLADAKERE THOTADAMANE,
GOLLARAHOSAHALLI HOBLI,.
CHNNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT (SITE NO.324, SY NO.49)
45. SRI P PRABURAJ

S/O LATE M PUTTAIAH,
NO.342,
MILK CENTER ROAD,
VISHWESHWARANAGAR I STAGE,
46. SRI K V VENKATESH

S/O LATE ANANDA,
RESIDING AT BANDIKERI BEEDHI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
47. SRI H SHIVANANJAIAH

S/O LATE HONNAYA,
R/O NO.292, 2ND STAGE,
K H B ROAD, EWS,
KUVEMPU NAGAR,
48. SRI ABANIPAL

S/O LATE JOGENDRA PAL,
EMPLOYEE NO.2309, SEC VIKRANTH TYRES,
49. SRI M M AHMAD

S/O LATE MOHAMMAD PAUAJULLA,
EMPLOYEE NO.2364,
71
VIKRANTH TYRES,
MYSURU-16,
50. SRI B MARI

S/O RAMEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.1292, RAMPURA ROAD,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT, (SITE NO.341, SY NO.49)
51. SMT B SAVITHRI

W/O D KUMARASWAMY,
RESIDING AT NO.62,
2ND MAIN,
N H C S LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU (SITE NO.298, SY NO.49)
52. SRI THOPANAIK

S/O LATE CHANNANAIKA,
RESIDING AT H NO. 289,
B M SHRI NAGAR,
METAGALLI LAYOUT/ POST,
MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.291,
SY NO.49)
53. SRI T N JEEVAN KUMAR

S/O LATE T N LINGAM,
RESIDING AT SHREE NILAYAM APARTMENT,
FLAT NO.004,
SY NO. 109/3C,
TUNGA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
TUNGA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560091
(SITE NO.299,SY NO.49)
54. SRI M DEVARAJ

S/O LATE K MAHADEVU,
72
P BLOCK,
NEW EXTENSION,
KUMBARAKOPPAL OPP GOVT SCHOOL,
MYSURU-16
55. SRI D PADMANABHA RAO

S/O LATE R H DEVOJIRAO,
RESIDING AT NO.2365,
12TH MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU-17
56. SRI H RAMESH SHET

S/O LATE H SRINIVAS SHET,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.2885-3/1,
7TH CROSS ROAD,
KALIDASA ROAD,
V V MOHALLA,
MYSURU-12 (SIRE NO.310, SY NO.49)
57. SRI R SRINIVASA

S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA,
MAARIGUDI BHEEDHI,
KUMBARAKOPPAL,
MYSURU-16
58. SRI H K JAGADISH

S/O LATE KALACHOWDAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.477,
IST MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
LOKANAYAKANAGARA,
73
59. SRI R SRINIVASA

S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA
RESIDING AT H NO .82/1,
MARIGUDI ROAD,
KUMBARAKOPPALU
MYSURU (SITE NO 356 SY NO 49)
60. SRI N S KRISHNAMURTHY

S/O LATE NABHA SUNDAR NARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.26
MEKALA, 15TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
GOKULAM
MYSURU (SIT NO.356, SY.NO.49)
61. SRI SHANTHARAJU
S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1106
ASHWINI NILAYA
8TH CROSS
3RD PHASE GOLULAM
MYSURU-12
(SITE NO.371, SY.NO.88/1)
62. SRI S CHANDRAPPA

S/O LATE R SIDDEGOWDA
AGED 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT T M HOSURU
KASABA HOBLI
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
63. SRI P RAJU

S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEW HOUSE ROAD
Q BLCOK 2
KUMBARAKOPPALU
MYSURU-16
74
64. SRI K KRISHNE GOWDA

S/O LATE BORE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.2882
8TH CROSS, V V MOHALLA
MYSURU-12
65 . SRI MOHAMMED JOHN

S/O LATE ABDUL RAVOOF
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
EMPLOYEE NO.2398
VIKRANT TYRES LTD.
MYSURU-16
66. SRI R PRIYAVRATHA

S/O LATE RACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.47
MANJUNATHNAGAR
YADAVAGIRI
MYSURU-02
67. SRI. M.B. GOPAL

S/O SRI. BASAVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOSA ANANDUR
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTR
68. SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA

S/O LATE KALE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS
RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK
69. SRI. M. BASAVARAJAPPA

S/O LAWTE UMA MAHESHWARAPPA
75
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

NO.579, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
B.M. SHRENAGARA,
METAGALLI POST,
MYSURU 570016
(SITE NO.289, SY NO.49
70. SRI. M.C. VASUDEVA MURTHY

S/O LATE M.G. CHKRAPANI RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PLOT NO.302 "A" BLOCK, OAS1S9
7TH CROSS, RAOD, ISRO EXTENSION,
BENGALURU 560078
(SITE NO.290, SY.NO.49
71. SRI. B. SIDDAIAH

C/O ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
8TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM,
MYSURU 570008
(SITE NO.292, SY.NO.49)
72. SMT. GEETHA SAROWAR
W/O ANAND SAROWAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
8TH BLOCK,
JAYANAARA,
BENGALURU 85,
(SITE NO.294, SY. NO.49)
73. SRI. L. BASAVARAJU

C/O ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH "A" CROSS
HEBBAL ST STAGE,
MYSURU 570016
(SITE NO.303, SY. NO.49)
74. SRI P SRINIVASA

C/O ANANDA
RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS,
76
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,

MYSURU 570016.
75. SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO

S/O LATE RAMA RAO,
RESIDING AT NO.1934, 6TH MAIN,
28TH CROSS, D GROUP BADAVANE,
SRIGANDA KAVALU,
BENGALURU 560091.
76. SRI S GUPTHAJI

S/O ALT SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY,
RESIDING AT NO.8, SRINVISA NILAYA,
1ST CROSS, KTV LAYOUT,
K R PURAM
BENGALURU 560036.
77. SRI N PAPANNA

C/O ANANDA,
RA/T NO.428, 7TH A COSS,
HEBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU-570016.
78. SRI K G ARUNA

S/O K.GOPAL SRI RAO,
NO.166, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
2ND STAGE, BRINDAVAN EXTN.
MYSURU 570020
79. SRI NAGARJA

S/O LATE JOGANNA GOWDA,
NO.101, 8TH AI ROAD,
HEBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU 570016.
80. SRI MARISWAMY GOWDA

S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT OSA ANANDOOR VILALGE,
PUMP HOSAHALLY POST,
SRIRANGAPATNA TQ.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
77
81. VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE M S BALAKRISHNA
RESIDING AT NO.5 4TH CROSS
DR AMBEDKAR LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGARA TELICOM LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560023
(SITE NO.334 SY NO.49)
82. SMT GAYATHRI

W/O LATE ODOSI GOWDA
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.98/2 2ND MAIN ROAD,
KIDAGANNAMA LAYOUT
KUMBARAKOPPAL MYSURU-16
83. SRI B MAHESHA

S/O LATE M BORALINGAIAH
NO.2630/1
HOSA BANDIKERI
6TH CROSS, CHAMUNDIPURAM
MYSURU-570004
(SITE NO 337 SY NO.49)
84. SRI S NATARAJA

S/O LATE SHIVANNA
RESIDING AT NO.1038/1 HUNSUR ROAD,
ADITHYA LAYOUT HINKAL
MYSURU-570032
(SITE NO.340/B SY NO.49)
85. SMT GOWRAMMA

W/O LATE GANGADHARA
RESIDING AT NO.112, 8TH A MAIN
6TH CROSS HEBBAL 1ST STAGE
MYSURU-570016
(SITE NO.342/A SY NO.49)
78
86. SRI N KEMPASHINGE GOWDA

S/O LATE NARASHIMEGOWDA
RESIDING AT HULIKERE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
87. SRI M RAMAIAH

S/O LATE LAKKAIAH
NO.2066 24TH CROSS,
HEBBAL 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU -570016
(SITE NO.348 SY NO.49
88. M BOJARAJ
S/O LATE MUDDU KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R-AT NO.695,
15TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
B.M.C. NAGARA
MYSURU-570016
89. N SAVITHRI
W/O LATE K NADUN CHELLIAN,
RESIDING AT NO.648/B,
IISC, HOUSING COLLONY
BENGALURU
90. N S KAMALAKARAN
S/O LATE M.S.SATHYAM,
8TH MAIN, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU-570016
91. J GURULINGAIAH
C/O ANANDA,
NO.428, 7TH A CROSS,
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU
79
92. GEETHA
W/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
8TH MAIN, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU-570016
93. A LOVELY D ANTO

W/O LATE ANTO,
C/O ANANDA
RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS,
HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU-570016
94. CHANNARAJA URS

S/O LATE MALARAJ URS,
C/O ANANDA RESIDING AT NO.428,
7TH A CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU
95. MANJULA
W/O ALTE H.E.NARAYANA GOWDA,
RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
VIJAYANAGARA, 1ST STAGE,
MYSURU-570 017.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
REPTD BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
M.S. BUILDING,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT

BOARD
REPTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
RASTROTHAN BUIDLING,
80
OPP. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,

N.R. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560002

KIADB DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
RASTROTHAN BUIDLING,
OPP. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
N.R. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560002
4. M/S. WIPRO
REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN / MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NO. 53, KAIKONDRAHALLI,
SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,
DODDAKANNELLI,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560035
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG ALONG WITH
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3
SRI. RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
-----
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
FROM THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS
DATED 22.08.2019 AT ANNX-Q, QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.08.2019 AT ANNX-Q,
QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE NOTIFICATION DATED 07.12.2005
ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(1) 1(3) AND 28(1) OF THE KIADB ACT
AND THE FINIAL NOTIFICATION AT ANNX-B AND THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 29.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND
PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-G AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT.
81
IN W.P.No.52298 OF 2019
BETWEEN
ROBUST MARKETING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF
COMAPNIES ACT 2013
HAVINAG ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT FLAT NO.502, 5TH FLOOR
STERLING HERITAGE, PLOT NO.388
SRI SANKARA MATTAM ROAD
MATUNGA, MUMBAI-400 019.
REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

MR. G. CHANDRASEKAR
S/O MR. G. GOVINDARAJULU
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADV.,)
AND
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGLAURU-560 001
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.

ESTALISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966
4TH AND 5TH EAST WING
BENGALURU-560 001
REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

82
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND

COMMERCE, 2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
BENGLAURU-560 01
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

BIKAMPADI, MANGALURU-575 011.
6. MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT

UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCES
NBO BUILDING, G-WINGS
NIRMAN BHAWAN, MOULANA AZAD ROAD
NEW DELHI-110 011
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
7. MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED

A GOVERNMENT COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING
OFCOMPANIES ACT 2013, KUTHETHOOR POST
MANGALURU-575 030
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
….RESPONDENTS
SRI.BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV., FOR R3 & R5
SRI.M.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADV., FOR R7
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR, CGC FOR R6)
----
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DECLARE SEC. 3(1), 28 AND 29 OF THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1966, TO BE ULTRA VIRES OF
ARITICLE 14, 19(1)(g) AND 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, 1950 IN ADDITION TO BEING REPUGNANT TO THE RIGHT
TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND
ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013
AND HENCE, LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN

HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.08.2021, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
83
JUDGMENT
In these intra Court appeals, the appellant namely
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', for short) has
assailed the validity of the interim order dated
19.04.2017 by which learned Single Judge has held as
follows:
“POINT NO. (i) : The State Government

cannot any longer exercise power under
Section 3 of the KIAD Act without
conforming to the pre-requisites as
prescribed under the 2013 Act, nor work the
other provisions of the Act without also
adhering to other mandatory provisions of
the 2013 Act and the Rules there under. The
Scheme under the KIAD Act as it prevails is
inconsistent with the provisions of the 2013
Act in terms of Article 254(2) of the
Constitution of India and is hence no longer
valid as an independent enactment.
84
POINT NO. (ii) : Section 24(2) of the 2013

Act is applicable to an acquisition initiated
under the provisions of the KIAD Act.
POINT NO. (iii) : By virtue of Section 24(2)

at whatever point of time the vesting of land
may have taken place, there is a divesting,
in terms thereof, as it provides for a ‘lapsing’
of the acquisition proceedings, if the
conditions specified therein are satisfied.
POINT NO. (iv) : The recent decision of the

Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 353/2017, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB,
Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai, dated 25.01.2017
did not involve a challenge to the
constitutional validity of the provisions of the
KIAD Act and hence does not advance the
case of the respondents.
The petitions to be posted for hearing

on facts and the merits of each case for final
disposal.”
In the writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed
the validity of the notifications issued under the

85
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act' for short) and
have also sought the relief that provisions of 1966 Act
have been impliedly repealed on commencement of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short).
2. When the matter was taken up, learned
counsel for the parties jointly requested the Court to
answer the legal issues. In view of aforesaid joint
request made by learned counsel for the parties, we
proceed to deal with the legal issues involved in this
batch of appeals and writ petitions, however, before
adverting to same, it is apposite to refer to the factual
backdrop, in which the issues arise for our
consideration. Facts leading to filing of the appeals and
the writ petitions briefly stated are that respondents are
the owners of the land situate in Jakkasandra,
Achatanhalli, Malur Taluk, District Kolar, Adinarayana

86
Hosahalli, Dodballa Taluk Bangalore Rural District,
Madhugiri village, Sira Taluk District Tumkur, Konappana
Agrahara Bangalore South Taluk, Archakarahalli,
Balveeranna Halli villages, Ramnagara Taluk Bangalore,
Madihelli East Bangalore Taluk, Arebinnamangala
Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk. The lands of the
respondent are required by the Board for a public
purpose and were notified for acquisition under the
provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1966 Act') and
preliminary notifications under Section 28(1) of the
1966 Act dated 15.04.1997, 06.07.2001, 07.08.2006,
27.02.2007, 13.03.2012, 27.10.2012, 14.06.2013,
07.12.2015, 09.12.2016 were issued. The respondents
filed the objections and after consideration of the
objections, final notifications under section 28(4) of the
1966 Act dated 15.07.1997, 27.08.2003, 18.06.2007,
28.06.2008, 15.09.2008, 19.08.2010, 04.12.2012,
04.01.2013, 30.01.2015, 20.07.2018 and 29.12.2018,

87
were issued. The respondents challenged the validity of
section 3, Chapter II and provisions of Chapter VII of
the 1966 Act as well as the validity of Notifications
issued under 1966 Act and sought the relief that
provisions of 1966 Act have been impliedly repealed on
commencement of 2013 Act, before the learned Single
Judge.
3. The learned Single Judge, by an interim order
dated 19.04.2017, inter alia held that Section 24(2) of
the are applicable to an acquisition initiated under the
1966 Act and the proceeding under the 1966 Act shall
lapse if conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. It
was further held that the scheme insofar as it pertains
to acquisition of land is inconsistent with the mandatory
provisions of the 2013 Act in terms of Article 254(2) of
the Constitution of India and is no longer valid as an
independent Act. Being aggrieved by the interim order
passed by the learned Single Judge, the Board has

88
preferred these appeals. In writ petitions, since the
issues pertaining to validity of the provisions of the 1966
Act arise for consideration, the writ petitions with
consent of parties were heard analogously with these
writ appeals.
SUBMISSION OF LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL IN

WRIT APPEALS:
4. Learned Advocate General submitted that the
1966 Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under
Entry 24 of List II of Seventh Schedule, whereas 2013
Act has been enacted in exercise of powers under Entry
42 of List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India respectively. While referring to provisions of 1966
Act as well as 2013 Act, it is contended that question of
repugnancy does not arise in the fact situation of the
case as both the enactments operate in different fields
and the 1966 Act does not occupy the field in respect of
which Parliament has enacted 2013 Act. It is also urged
that in order to succeed on the ground that provisions of

89
1966 Act have been repealed, the respondents are
required to demonstrate that both legislations operate in
respect of same subject matter and provisions of both
the laws cannot coexist. It is also urged that question of
repugnancy on the ground of 1966 Act having occupied,
the field does not arise. It is also pointed out that Entry
24 of List II to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
of India deals with ‘industry’ which is a subject of State
list and therefore, the question of Parliament evincing
interest in respect of a subject matter of a State List
does not arise. It is also pointed out that during
pendency of the appeal, the State Government by
Amending Act No.16 of 2019 namely Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and
Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment) Act 2019, has
amended the 2013 Act. In support of aforementioned
submissions reliance has been placed on decisions of the
Supreme Court in 'STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. V.
M.A. TULLOCH', AIR 1964 SC 1284, 'RAMTANU CO-

90
OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR. V.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.', (1970) 3 SCC
323, 'M. KARUNANIDHI V. UNION OF INDIA',
(1979) 3 SCC 431, 'M/S HOECHST
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND OTHERS V. STATE
OF BIHAR AND OTHERS', (1983) 4 SCC 45, 'VIJAY
KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (1990) 2 SCC 562.
5. It is also pointed out that subsequent to the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, provisions of
1966 Act were amended by Karnataka Amendment Act
No. 16 of 2019 and therefore the provisions of Chapter
II and III of 2013 Act do not apply in respect of notified
projects. While referring to provisions of Sections 28 and
29 of 1966 Act as well as Sections 11, 15, 16 to 19 of
2013 Act, it is submitted that there is no conflict
between provisions of both the enactments.
6. Learned Advocate General, while referring to
Section 29 of the 1966 Act and Sections 26 to 28, 30(2)

91
and First Schedule of the 2013 Act submitted that even
provisions pertaining to determination of compensation
contained in both the enactments are not in conflict with
each other. Our attention has also been invited to
resolution dated 27.08.2016 passed by the Board by
which it has resolved to take into account the
components mentioned in First Schedule appended to
the 2013 Act for computation of market value of the
land in respect of land which has to be acquired under
1966 Act. It is therefore submitted that grievance of the
owners of land insofar as it pertains to challenge to
provisions pertaining to determination of compensation
in fact does not survive. It is also urged that 1966 Act is
a self contained code. In support of aforesaid
submissions, reliance has been placed on the decisions
of Supreme Court in 'MAGANLAL CHHAGANLAL (P)
LTD. V. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER
BOMBAY AND ORS.', (1974) 2 SCC 402 AND
'GIRNAR TRADERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

92
AND ORS.', (2011) 3 SCC 1. It is also contended that
issue with regard to applicability of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act to the proceeding under 1966 Act is no longer
res integra and it has been held that Section 24(2) does
not apply to the proceeding under 1966 Act. In this
connection, reference has been made to decision of
Supreme Court in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, MYSORE V. ANASUYA BAI', (2017) 3 SCC
313.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS IN WRIT APPEALS:
7. In W.A.No.4056/2017, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 submitted that the 1966 Act has been
enacted after obtaining the assent of the President of
India. In this connection, reference has been made to
Article 31 of the Constitution of India and it is submitted
that the same was in existence when 1966 Act was
enacted by the State Legislature. It is further submitted
that 1966 Act is an Act, which pertains to acquisition of
land and not industry. It is also pointed out that 1966

93
Act has been enacted under Entry 42 of List-III of
Seventh Schedule and not under Entry 24 of List-II of
Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is also
urged that the power to legislate for acquisition of
property can be exercised only under Entry 42 of List-III
to the Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. It is
also urged that after enactment of 2013 Act, 1966 Act is
deemed to have repealed and is repugnant to the
provisions of 2013 Act. In this connection, our attention
has been invited to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of ‘RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER VS.
UNION OF INDIA’, 1970(1) SCC 248 as well as in the
case of ‘M. NAGABHUSHANA VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA’, 2011(3) SCC 408, and it is contended
that the 1966 Act is a self contained code and primarily
a law regulating acquisition of land for public purpose
and for payment of compensation. It is also urged that
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
‘SHRI RAMTANU CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING

94
SOCIETY LTD is not binding on this Court per incuriam
as the aforesaid decision has been rendered in ignorance
of the decision rendered by a bench of 11 Judges in
RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER’S case.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent in
W.A.No.4065/2017 submitted that 1966 Act is not an
Act pertaining to industries, as expression 'industries', is
defined to mean the process of manufacture or
production and therefore, Chapter I to VII of the 1966
Act cannot be construed as incidental to the dominant
object of the 1966 Act. It is submitted that the
expression 'industries' cannot be enlarged to mean the
power to acquire the land. It is also submitted that in
respect of power of acquisition of property, the question
of incidental power does not arise and the power of
acquisition is expressly conferred under Entry 42 of List
III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Board
that Article 254(2) does not apply to the facts of the

95
case in hand, cannot be accepted. In support of
aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the
decisions of Supreme Court in 'CALCUTTA GAS
COMPANY (PROPRIETARY) LTD. Vs. STATE OF
WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS' AIR 1962 SC 1044,
'RUSTOM CAVASJEE COOPER Vs. UNION OF INDIA'
(1970) 1 SCC 248 AND 'ISHWARI KETAN SUGAR
MILLS (P) LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND OTHERS' (1980) 4 SCC 136 AND
FORUM FOR PEOPLE'S COLLECTIVE EFFORTS
(FPCE) AND ANOHER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL',
(2021) SCC ONLINE 361.
9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.30905/2018 and 49536/2019 submits that
object of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was to acquire the
land for the purpose of East India Company and the
Government in power and the Doctrine of eminent
domain was invoked to confiscate the property of a
private individual in exercise of sovereign power. It is

96
pointed out that the Supreme Court has recognized the
power of eminent domain in 'KEDARNATH YADAV Vs.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS', AIR 2016 SC
4156, 'LAXMAN LAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND
ANR. Vs,. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.', (2013) 3
SCC 764 as well as by Madras High Court in
'SUDARSHAN CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. THE GOVT.
OF TAMIL NADU', (2018) LAWS (MAD)3 918. It is
further submitted that right to property has been
recognized by Article 17 of Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in the year 1948 itself which was diluted
by the Parliament by inserting Article 31A in the
Constitution. It is further submitted that right to hold
property is still a Constitutional right as prescribed under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India and has been
recognized by the Supreme Court as a human right in
'HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Vs.
DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI' (2005) 7 SCC 627,
'PADMAMMA Vs. RAMKRISHNA REDDY' (2008) 15

97
SCC 517, 'K.T.PLANTATION PVT. LTD. & ANR Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA' (2011) 9 SCC 1 AND
'DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Vs.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.' (2011) 9 SCC 354.
10. It is contended that Land Acquisition Act,
1894 occupied the field, on the date of commencement
of the Constitution of India and was adopted for
acquisition of the land by virtue of Article 372 of the
Constitution of India. It is pointed out that Entry 42 of
List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India
deals with power of the State as well as Union
Government to legislate on the subject of 'acquisition of
land'. It is argued that the State legislature enacted the
1966 Act and sought the assent of President of India
and the President gave assent to the same on
14.05.1996, which presupposes that 1966 Act was
repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, otherwise
the State Government would not have obtained the
assent of the President. It is also argued that in view of

98
the assent given by the President, the 1966 Act was
protected under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.
It is also argued that Parliament, in exercise of powers
under the concurrent list enacted 2013 Act on
26.09.2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014 and
therefore, the 1966 Act was impliedly repealed in view
of proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India.
11. While inviting our attention to statement of
objects and reasons and the provisions of the 1966 Act
as well as 2013 Act, it is contended that provisions of
1966 Act are in direct conflict with the 2013 Act and
there is no requirement of invoking the doctrine of pith
and substance, as the Parliament intended to repeal the
State law. It is also contended that 2013 Act has
occupied the field of acquisition and development of
industrial corridor and has been enacted in exercise of
power under Entry 52 of List I and Entry 42 of List III of
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. It is
pointed out that Entry 24 of List II is not an exclusive

99
legislative power but is subject to Entry 7 and 52 of List
I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and
there is no encroachment of power by the Parliament. It
is also argued that 2013 Act is a dominant legislation
occupying the entire field relating to acquisition and
development of industrial corridor and is intended to
confer benefits to the land losers and affected persons
by providing for fair compensation as well as
rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families.
12. It is also argued that objects and reasons of
Karnataka Amendment Act 2019 are shocking and are
opposed to decisions of various Courts and the same are
in violation of Section 108 of 2013 Act. It is also argued
that the amendment made by State Legislature to 2013
Act defeats the federal structure of the country and is
violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In
support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed on the decisions in 'STATE OF KERALA Vs. MAR
APPAEM KURI CO. LTD.' (2012) 7 SCC 106,

100
'KAISER-I-HIND PVT. LTD. AND ORS. Vs.
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION' AIR (SC)
3404, 'ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS Vs. THE STATE OF
BOMBAY AIR 1954 SC 742, 'P.L.MEHRA Vs.
D.R.KHANNA' 1971 AIR (DEL) 1, 'M.KARUNANIDHI
Vs. UNION OF INDIA' AIR 1979 SC 898, 'T.BARAI
Vs. HENRY AH HOE AND ANR.' (1983) 1 SCC 177,
'RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PEERLESS GENERAL
FINANCE' 1987 1 SCC 424, 'THE STATE OF TAMIL
NADU & ORS. Vs. ANANTHI AMMAL & ORS.' 1994
SCC (11) 75, 'PT.RISHIKESH AND ANR. Vs.
SMT.SALMA BEGUM' 1995 4 SCC 718, 'VASU DEV
SINGH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS' (2006)
12 SCC 753, 'SHAYARA BANO Vs. UNION OF INDIA
& ORS.' (2017) 8 SCC 39, 'PRANAV BAJPE Vs. THE
STATE OF KARNATAKA' IN W.P.No.27761/2019,
'VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA & ORS.' (1990) 2 SCC 562, 'ANITHA
KISHORI D'SILVA Vs. THE LAND ACQUISITION

101
OFFICER & ORS.' ILR 2015 KAR 3769, 'MESSERS
RAYALA CORPORATION (P) LTD. & ANR. Vs.
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, NEW DELHI' (1969)
2 SCC 412, 'KOLHAPUR CANECUGAR WORKS LTD.
& ANR. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.' (2000) 2 SCC
536, 'GENERAL FINANCE CO. & ANR. Vs.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
PUNJAB (2002) 7 SCC 1 AND DECISION OF
MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 03.07.2019 PASSED
IN W.P.No.22448/2018 AND OTHER CONNECTED
MATTERS.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.55704/2017, 19222/2018 and 12283/2019,
while adopting the submissions made by the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30905/2018
and 49536/2019, submitted that assent accorded by the
President to 1966 Act came to an end on 26.09.2013
and the State Act has therefore become void. It is also
submitted that the provisions of 1966 Act have been

102
rendered unconstitutional on account of passage of time.
It is also argued that right of the farmer to cultivate the
land, is part of his right to livelihood and if two views are
possible, the one which protects the constitutional right
must be preferred. In support of aforesaid submission,
reliance has been placed on the decisions in
'ASSOCIATION OF NATURAL GAS Vs. STATE OF
GUJARAT' (2004) 4 SCC 489, 'CHAIRMAN, INDORE
VIKAS PRADHIKARAN Vs. PURE INDUSTRIAL COKE
AND CHEMICALS LTD. & ORS.' (2007) 8 SCC 705,
'DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB' (2008) 1
SCC 728, 'JOHN VALLAMATTOM Vs. UNION OF
INDIA' (2003) 6 SCC 611, 'KAPILA HINGO RANI
Vs. STATE OF BIHAR' (2003) 6 SCC 1, 'SAHARA
INDIA REAL ESTATE Vs. SEBI' (2013) 1 SCC 1,
'RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF
CHATTISGARH' (2015) 10 SCC 400 AND
'KEDARNATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL'
(2017) 11 SCC 601.

103
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS IN WRIT PETITION
14. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.9
in W.P.No.22707/2018 submitted that the 1966 Act has
been enacted under Entry 24 of List II and Entry 7 &
Entry 52 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India does not relate to acquisition of
land. It is further submitted that the 1966 Act has not
been enacted under Entry 42 of List III of Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is also
contended that entries in the list contained in Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India are not sources of
power but are merely demarcated fields of legislation
and have to be construed liberally and widely so as to
attain the purpose.
15. It is also urged that the enactments viz.,
1966 Act and 2013 Act operate in different fields and
therefore, the question of conflict between 1966 Act and
2013 Act does not arise. It is also urged that the

104
concept of occupied field is only relevant in case of a law
enacted under the entries of list III of Seventh Schedule
of Constitution of India. It is further contended that
since, 1966 Act and 2013 Act have been enacted
respectively under List II and List III of Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India, the question of
repugnancy does not arise and since, the State
Legislature is competent to enact the provisions of the
1966 Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance
has been placed on decisions in 'SHRI RAMTANU CO-
OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND
ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
OTHERS', (1970) 3 SCC 323, 'GIRNAR TRADERS
(3) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS',
(2011) 3 SCC 1, 'SHORT NOTES OF CASES', 1975
(1) KAR L.J. 94, 'OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE
LIMITED VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHOIRTY AND OTHERS', (2011) 3 SCC 139,
'SHORT NOTES ITEM 273', 1974(1) KKAR L.J.112,

105
'HMT LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.GENERAL
MANAGER (HRM) AND ANOTHER VS. MUDAPPA
AND OTHERS', (2007) 9 SCC 768, 'S.S.DARSHAN
VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', (1996) 7
SCC 302, 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ,
KIADB, MYSORE AND ANOTHR VS. ANASUYA BAI
(DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND
OTHERS', (2017) 3 SCC 313, 'STATE OF A.P. AND
OTHERS VS. MCDOWELL & CO. AND OTHERS',
(1996) 3 SCC 709, and 'SECURITY ASSOCIATION
OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS', (2014) 12 SCC 65.
16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 in
W.P.No.55704/2019 has adopted the submissions made
by learned Advocate General and learned Senior counsel
for respondent No.9 in W.P.No.22707/2018 and has
submitted that the issue of rehabilitation and
resettlement of the owners of the lands is being taken

106
care of by the Board in the light of the Government
Order issued in the year 1992.
17. We have considered the submissions made
by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record. The power of 'eminent domain' connotes the
inherent power of the Government to take property
especially land of a person and to convert it to public
use, subject to payment of reasonable compensation.
The power of 'eminent domain' was exercised under
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was adopted by the
Central Government under Article 372 of the
Constitution of India. Article 17 of Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, 1948 recognized the right of an
individual to own property. The said right was
recognized in the Constitution of India as fundamental
right under Article 31 of the Constitution of India, which
was subsequently deleted by Constitution of Forty
Fourth Amendment Act. However, right to property is a
constitutional right under Article 300-A of the

107
Constitution of India and has also been recognized as
Human right and cannot be taken away except in
accordance with law. [See: 'PADMAMMA VS.
RAMKRISHNA REDDY', (2008) 15 SCC 517]. After
having noticed the power of 'eminent domain' and
nature and right of an individual to own property,
ISSUES:
The issues, which arise for consideration in these
bunch of cases are as under:
(1) Whether the provisions of Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
are repugnant to the provisions of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013?
(2) Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Act, 1966 is impliedly
repealed on coming into force of the Right
to Fair Compensation ad Transparency in
108
(3) Whether Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Act, 1966 is a special
enactment vis a vis Right to Fair
Compensation and transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
(4) Whether the sanction given by the

President on 26.05.1966 to Karnataka Act
No.18 of 1966, stood lapsed or come to
end on coming into force of the 2013 Act?
(5) What is the effect of Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Karnataka Amendment)
Act, 2019 (Act No.16 of 2019) on Right to
Fair Compensation and transparency in
(6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of

2013 Act apply to proceeding under 1966
Act?
18. We now proceed to deal with the issues ad
seriatum:
109
ISSUE NO.1.
(1) Whether the provisions of Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 are
repugnant to the provisions of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013?
At this stage, it is apposite to take note of well
settled legal propositions with regard to repugnancy.
The Supreme Court in 'DEEP CHAND VS. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH', AIR 1959 SC 648 laid down
following three principles to ascertain the question of
repugnancy between two statutes and held as under:
(1) Whether there is direct conflict between

the two provisions;
(2) Whether Parliament intended to lay

down an exhaustive code in respect of
the subject-matter replacing the Act of
the State Legislature and
110
(3) Whether the law made by Parliament

and the law made by the State
Legislature occupy the same field.
19. In State of 'ORISSA VS. M.A.TULLOCH
AND CO.', AIR 1964 SC 284 while examining the issue
whether Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act,
1952 has been rendered ineffective on enactment of the
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
1957, it was held as follows:
Repugnancy arises when two

enactments both within the competence of the
two Legislatures collide and when the
Constitution expressly or by necessary
implication provides that the enactment of one
Legislature has superiority over the other then
to the extent of the repugnancy the one
supersedes the other. But two enactments may
be repugnant to each other even though
obedience to each of them is possible without
disobeying the other. The test of two
legislations containing contradictory provisions
111
is not, however, the only criterion of

repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with
a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly
evinces by its legislation an intention to cover
the whole field, the enactments of the other
legislature whether passed before or after
would be overborne on the ground of
repugnance. Where such is the position, the
inconsistency is demonstrated not by a
detailed comparison of provisions of the two
statutes but by the mere existence of the two
pieces of legislation.
20. In 'SHRI RAMTANU CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS', (1970) 3 SCC
323, the Supreme Court dealt with twin questions viz.,
whether State of Maharashtra is competent to enact the
Maharashtra Industrial Act, 1961 and whether there is
procedural discrimination between Maharashtra
Industrial Act, 1961 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It
was inter alia held that Maharashtra Industrial Act is a
special Act having the specific and special purpose of

112
growth, development and organization of industries in
Maharashtra and the same does not fall within Entry 7
and Entry 52 of Union List but is within State List of
Industries and therefore, the State Legislature was
competent to enact the aforesaid law. The relevant
extract of para 15 reads as under:
It is in the background of the purposes

of the act and powers and functions of the
Corporation that the real and true character of
the legislation will be determined. That is the
doctrine of finding out the pith and substance
of an Act. IN deciding the pith and substance
of the legislation, the true test is not to find
out whether the Act has encroached upon or
invaded any forbidden field but what the pith
and substance of the Act is. It is that true
intent of the Act which will determine the
validity of the Act. Industries come within
Entry 24 of the State List subject to the
provision of Entry 7 and Entry 52 of the Union
List of the Constitution. Entry 7 of the Union
List relates to industries declared by
Parliament by law to be necessary for the
113
purpose of defence or for the prosecution of

war. Entry 52 of the Union List relates to
industries, the control of which by the Union is
declared by Parliament by law to be expedient
in the public interest. The establishment,
growth and development of industries in the
State of Maharashtra does not fall within Entry
7 and Entry 52 of the Union List.
Establishment, growth and development of
industries in the state is within the State List of
industries. Furthermore, to effectuate the
purposes of the development of industries in
the State is necessary to make land available.
Such land can be made available by acquisition
or requisition.
21. The decisions rendered in DEEP CHAND and
M.A.TULLOCH AND CO. supra were referred to with
approval by the Supreme Court in 'M.KARUNANIDHI
VS. UNION OF INDIA', (1979) 3 SCC 431 and the
proposition emerging from various decisions of the
Supreme Court were culled out in paragraphs 24, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33 and 35 as under:

114
24. It is well settled that the

presumption is always in favour of the
constitutionality of a statute and the onus lies
on the person assailing the Act to prove that it
is unconstitutional. Prima facie, there does not
appear to us to be any inconsistency between
the State Act and the Central Acts. Before any
repugnancy can arise, the following conditions
must be satisfied:-
1. That there is a clear and direct

inconsistency between the Central
Act and the State Act.
2. That such an inconsistency is
absolutely irreconcilable.
3. That the inconsistency between
the provisions of the two Acts is of
such a nature as to bring the two Acts
into direct collision with each other
and a situation is reached where it is
impossible to obey the one without
disobeying the other.
25. In Colin Howard's Australian

Federal Constitutional Law, 2nd Edition the
author while describing the nature of
115
inconsistency between the two enactments

observed as follows:-
"An obvious inconsistency arises when the
two enactments produce different legal results
when applied to the same facts".
26. In the case of Hume v. Palmer

Knox, C.J. observed as follows:-
"The rules prescribed by the
Commonwealth Law and the State law
respectively are for present purposes
substantially identical, but the penalties
imposed for the contravention differ... In these
circumstances, it is I think, clear that the
reasons given by my brothers Issacs and
Starke for the decisions of this Court in Union
Steamship Co. of New Zealand v.
Commonwealth(1) and Clyde Engineering Co.
v. Cowburn establish that the provisions of the
law of the State for the breach of which the
appellant was convicted are inconsistent with
the law of the Commonwealth within the
meaning of sec. 109 of the Constitution and
are therefore invalid".
116
Issacs, J. observed as follows:-

"There can be no question that the
Commonwealth Navigation Act, by its own
direct provisions and the Regulations made
under its authority, applies upon construction
to the circumstances of the case. It is
inconsistent with the State Act in various ways,
including (1) general supersession of the
regulations of conduct, and so displacing the
State regulations, whatever those may be; (2)
the jurisdiction to convict, the State law
empowering the Court to convict summarily,
the Commonwealth Law making the
contravention an indictable offence, and
therefore bringing into operation sec. 80 of the
Constitution, requiring a jury; (3) the penalty,
the State providing a maximum of $ 50 the
Commonwealth Act prescribing a maximum of
$ 100, or imprisonment, or both; (4) the
tribunal itself".
Starke, J. observed as follows:-

"It is not difficult to see that the Federal
Code would be 'disturbed or deranged' if the
State Code applied a different sanction in
respect of the same act. Consequently the
117
State regulations are, in my opinion,

inconsistent with the law of the Commonwealth
and rendered invalid by force of sec. 109 of the
Constitution".
27. In a later case of the Australian

High Court in Ex.
Parte Mclean(3) Issacs and Starke, JJ.
while dwelling on the question of repugnancy
made the following observation:-
"In Cowburn's case (supra) is stated the

reasoning for that conclusion and we will now
refer to those statements without repeating
them. In short, the very same conduct by the
same persons is dealt with in conflicting terms
by the Commonwealth and State Acts. A Court,
seeing that, has no authority to inquire further,
or to seek to ascertain the scope or bearing of
the State Act. It must simply apply sec. 109 of
the Constitution, which declares the invalidity
protanto of the State Act".
Similarly Dixon, J. observed thus:-

"When the Parliament of the
Commonwealth and the Parliament of a State
118
each legislate upon the same subject and

prescribe what the rule of conduct shall be,
they make laws which are inconsistent,
notwithstanding that the rule of conduct is
identical which each prescribes, and sec. 109
applies. That this is so is settled, at least when
the sanctions they impose are diverse Hume v.
Palmer (supra)".
28. In the case of Zaverbhai Amaidas

v. The State of Bombay this Court laid down
the various tests to determine the
inconsistency between two enactments and
observed as follows-
"The important thing to consider with

reference to this provision is whether the
legislation is 'in respect of the same matter'. If
the later legislation deals not with the matters
which formed the subject of the earlier
legislation but with other and distinct matters
though of a cognate and allied character,
then Article 254 (2) will have no application.
The principle embodied in section 107 (2)
and Article 254 (2) is that when there is
legislation covering the same ground both by
119
the Centre and by the Province, both of them

being competent to enact the same, the law of
the Centre should prevail over that of the
State". "It is true, as already pointed out, that
on a question under Article 254(1) whether an
Act of Parliament prevails against a law of the
State, no question of repeal arises; but the
principle on which the rule of implied repeal
rests, namely, that if subject-matter of the
later legislation is identical with that of the
earlier, so that they cannot both stand
together, then the earlier is repealed by the
later enactment, will be equally applicable to a
question under Article 254(2) whether the
further legislation by Parliament is in respect of
the same matter as that of the State law".
29. In the case of Ch. Tika Ramji &

Ors. etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.(2) while dealing with the question of
repugnancy between a Central and a State
enactment, this Court relied on the
observations of Nicholas in his Australian
Constitution, 2nd Ed. p.303, where three tests
of inconsistency or repugnancy have been laid
down and which are as follows:-
120
"(1) There may be inconsistency in the

actual terms of the competing statutes R.
Brisbane Licensing Court(1).
(2) Though there may be no direct conflict,
a State law may be inoperative because the
Commonwealth law, or the award of the
Commonwealth Court, is intended to be a
complete exhaustive code Clyde Engineering
Co. Ltd. v. Cowburn (supra).
(3) Even in the absence of intention, a
conflict may arise when both State and
Commonwealth seek to exercise their powers
over the same subject matter Victoria v.
Commonwealth(2) Wenn v. Attorney
General(3) This Court also relied on the
decisions in the case of Hume v. Palmer as also
the case of Ex Parte Mclean (supra) referred to
above. This Court also endorsed the
observations of Sulaiman, J. in the case of
Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh (4) where
Sulaiman, J. observed as follows:
"When the question is whether a
Provincial legislation is repugnant to an
existing Indian law, the onus of showing
its repugnancy and the extent to which it
121
is repugnant should be on the party

attacking its validity. There ought to be a
presumption in favour of its validity, and
every effort should be made to reconcile
them and construe both so as to avoid
their being repugnant to each other, and
care should be taken to see whether the
two do not really operate in different
fields without encroachment. Further,
repugnancy must exist in fact, and not
depend merely on a possibility".
30. In the case of Om Prakash Gupta

v. State of U.P.(5) where this Court was
considering the question of the inconsistency
between the two Central enactments,
namely, the Indian Penal Code and
the Prevention of Corruption Act held that
there was no inconsistency and observed as
follows:-
"It seems to us, therefore, that the two

offences are distinct and separate. This is the
view taken in Amarendra Nath Roy v. The
State(1) and we endorse the opinion of the
learned Judges, expressed therein. Our
122
conclusion, therefore, is that the offence

created under section 5 (1) (c) of
the Corruption Act is distinct and separate
from the one under section 405 of the Indian
Penal Code and, therefore, there can be no
question of section 5 (1) (c) repealing section
405 of the Indian Penal Code. If that is so,
then, Article 14 of the Constitution can be no
bar".
[…]
33. In the case of State of Orissa v. M.

A. Tulloch & Co.
(1) Ayyangar J. speaking for the Court
observed as follows:-
"Repugnancy arises when two
enactments both within the competence
of the two Legislatures collide and when
the Constitution expressly or by necessary
implication provides that the enactment of
one Legislature has superiority over the
other then to the extent of the
repugnancy the one supersedes the other.
But two enactments may be repugnant to
each other even though obedience to each
123
of them is possible without disobeying the

other. The test of two legislations
containing contradictory provisions is not,
however, the only criterion of
repugnancy, for if a competent legislature
with a superior efficacy expressly or
impliedly evinces by its legislation an
intention to cover the whole field, the
enactments of the other legislature
whether passed before or after would be
overborne on the ground of repugnance.
Where such is the position, the
inconsistency is demonstrated not by a
detailed comparison of provisions of the
two statutes but by the mere existence of
the two pieces of legislation".
[…]
35. 1. That in order to decide the

question of repugnancy it must be shown that
the two enactments contain inconsistent and
irreconcilable provisions so that they cannot
stand together or operate in the same field.
124
2. That there can be no repeal by

implication unless the inconsistency appears on
the face of the two statutes.
3. That where the two statues occupy

a particular field, but there is room or
possibility of both the statutes operating the
same field without coming into collision with
each other, no repugnancy results.
4. That where there is no

inconsistency but a statute occupying the same
field seeks to create distinct and separate
offences, no question of repugnancy arises and
both the statutes continue to operate in the
same field.
22. In 'HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
VS. STATE OF BIHAR', (1983) 4 SCC 45 it was held
as under:
57. It is well settled that the validity of

an Act is not affected if it incidentally trenches
upon matters outside the authorized field and
therefore it is necessary to inquire in each case
what is the pith and substance of the Act
125
impugned. If the Act, when so viewed,

substantially falls within the powers expressly
conferred upon the legislature which enacted
it, then it cannot be held to be invalid merely
because it incidentally encroaches on matters
which have been assigned to another
Legislature.
23. In 'VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA', (1990) 2 SCC 562, it was held as
under:
46. What is important from our point

of view, is the view taken in that case that
when repugnancy is alleged between the two
statutes, it is necessary to examine whether
the two laws occupy the same field, whether
the new or the later statute covers the entire
subject matter of the old, whether legislature
intended to lay down an exhaustive code in
respect of the subject matter covered by the
earlier law so as to replace it in its entirety and
whether the earlier special statute can be
construed as remaining in effect as a
qualification of or exception to the later
126
general law, since the new statute is enacted

knowing fully well the existence of the earlier
law and yet it has not repealed it expressly.
The decision further lays down that for
examining whether the two statutes cover the
same subject matter, what is necessary to
examine is the scope and the object of the two
enactments, and that has to be done by
ascertaining the intention in the usual way and
what is meant by the usual way is nothing
more or less than the ascertainment of the
dominant object of the two legislations.
[…]
53. The aforesaid review of the

authorities makes it clear that whenever
repugnancy between the State and Central
Legislation is alleged, what has to be first
examined is whether the two legislations cover
or relate to the same subject matter. The test
for determining the same is the usual one,
namely, to find out the dominant intention of
the two legislations. If the dominant intention,
i.e. the pith and substance of the two
legislations is different, they cover different
127
subject matters. If the subject matters covered

by the legislations are thus different, then
merely because the two legislations refer to
some allied or cognate subjects they do not
cover the same field. The legislation, to be on
the same subject matter must further cover
the entire field covered by the other. A
provision in one legislation to give effect to its
dominant purpose may incidentally be on the
same subject as covered by the provision of
the other legislation. But such partial coverage
of the same area in a different context and to
achieve a different purpose does not bring
about the repugnancy which is intended to be
covered by Article 254(2). Both the legislations
must be substantially on the same subject to
attract the Article.
24. In 'STATE OF A.P. VS. MC DOWELL & CO.
& OTHERS', (1996) 3 SCC 709, the Supreme Court
held that whenever a piece of legislation is said to be
beyond legislative competence of a State Legislature,
what one must do is to find out by applying the rule of
pith and substance as to whether the legislation falls

128
within any Entries in List II and if it does not, further
question arises and attack on the ground of legislative
competence must fail. In 'OFFSHORE HOLDINGS (P.)
LTD. VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHOIRTIY', (2011) 3 SCC 139, the constitution
bench of the Supreme Court, held tat one of the settled
principles to examine the repugnancy or conflict
between provisions of law enacted by two legislatures is
to apply doctrine of pith and substance. It was further
held that entries in legislative fields are not powers of
legislation but fields of legislation and have to be
construed liberally. It was also held that developmental
of land does not find place in concurrent list or List I
and Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 is a law
relatable to Entry 5 and 18 of List II, whereas, Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 is relatable to Entry 42 of List III.
In 'SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2014) 12 SCC
65, it was held that before determining the issue of

129
repugnancy between State Act & Central Act one has to
see whether both Acts related to same entry in List III
and whether there is direct and irreconcilable conflict
between the two.
25. In 'FORUM FOR PEOPLE'S COLLECTIVE
EFFORTS (FPCE) AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF
WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER', 2021 SCC ONLINE
SC 361 while dealing with Article 254 of the Constitution
of India and repugnancy, the Supreme Court has held
that Repugnancy of a statute enacted by the State
Legislature with a central statute on a subject in the
concurrent list may arise in anyone or more of the
following modes: First, there may be an inconsistency or
conflict in the actual terms of competing statutes;
second, though there is no direct conflict between a
State and Central statute, the later may be intended to
be an exhaustive code in which event it occupies the
whole field, excluding the operation of the state law on
the subject in the concurrent list; and third, even in the

130
absence of an actual conflict, repugnancy may arise
when both the State and Central statutes seek to
exercise power over the same subject matter.
26. Thus, from the perusal of aforementioned
decisions of Supreme Court, following legal propositions
emerge:
(i) The presumption is always in

favour of constitutionality of a statute and
burden is on the person alleging the same to
be unconstitutional.
(ii) In order to decision the question of

repugnancy or conflict, the doctrine of pit and
substance has to be invoked.
(iii) In order to attract doctrine of

repugnancy it must be shown that both the
enactments have been enacted in respect of
same subject matter and operated in the same
field.
(iv) The doctrine of implied repeal

applies when legislature with superior efficacy
evinces an interest to cover whole field and is
131
an exhaustive code in respect of subject

matter of State Legislation.
(v) Clear and Direct inconsistency

must exist between two enactments and such
inconsistency should be absolutely
irreconcilable.
(vi) Every effort should be to made to

reconcile both enactments and to construe
them in such a manner so as to avoid their
being repugnant to each other.
(vii) Validity of an Act is not affected if

it incidentally trenches on matters outside the
authorized field and therefore, it is necessary
to determine the pith and substance of every
enactment and to find out whether Act
substantially falls within powers expressly
conferred by the legislature.
(viii) An enactment cannot be said to be

invalid merely because it incidentally
encroaches on the matters which have been
assigned to another legislation.
132
27. Entry 24 of List II, Entry 7 & 52 of List I and
Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India, read as under:
List I :
7. Industries declared by Parliament by law to

be necessary for the purpose of defence or
for the prosecution of war.
52. Industries, the control of which by the Union

is declared by Parliament by law to be
expedient in the public interest.
List II :
24. Industries subject to the provisions of Entries
and 52 of List I.
List III:
42. Acquisition and requisitioning of property.
28. It is well settled in law that declaration by
Parliament by law to assume control over any particular
industry in public interest is a sine-qua-non to clothe the
Parliament with power under Entry 7 and Entry 52 of
List I to legislate in respect of that industry, otherwise,
industry as a general head of legislation is in exclusive
sphere of State Legislative activity pursuant to Entry 24

133
of List II of Seventh Schedule to Constitution. The
legislative power of State under Entry 24 of List II is
evaded only to the extent, control is assumed by the
Parliament pursuant to a declaration. [See: 'ISHWARI
KHETAN SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & OTHERS', (1980) 4 SCC 136].
29. The 1966 Act received the assent of the
President on 14.05.1966 and came into force on
26.05.1966. The statement of objects and reasons of
1966 Act, read as under:
An Act to make special provisions for

securing the establishment of industrial areas
in the State of Karnataka and generally to
promote the establishment and orderly
development of industries therein, and for that
purpose to establish an Industrial Areas
Development Board and for purposes
connected with the matters aforesaid.
30. Thus, from perusal of statement of objects
and reasons, it is axiomatic that 1966 Act is an Act for

134
establishment of an industrial area, for promoting the
establishment and orderly development of industries and
establishment of Industrial Areas Development Board.
Section 3 of the 1966 Act empowers the State
Government to declare any area in the State to be an
industrial area for the purposes of 1966 Act. Section 4 of
the 1966 Act empowers the State Government to alter
the industrial area by including or excluding any area
from industrial area. Section 5 of the Act deals with
establishment and incorporation of Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board, which is a Body Corporate
having perpetual succession and a common seal. Section
6 of the 1966 Act provides for constitution of the Board,
whereas, Section 7 of the 1966 Act deals with terms of
office and conditions of service for members of the
Board. Section 11 of the 1966 Act provides for
appointment of Chief Executive Officer of the Board as
well as other employees. Section 13 of the 1966 Act
defines the functions of the Board, whereas, Section 14

135
of the 1966 Act defines the general power of the Board.
Chapter V of the Act, which contain Sections 18 to 24 of
the 1966 Act deal with 'Finance, Accounts and Audit' of
the Board. Chapter VI, which contain Sections 25 & 26 of
the 1966 Act provide that provisions of Karnataka Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974
apply to premises of the Board, whereas, the provisions
of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 do not apply to the
premises of the Board. Chapter VII deals with acquisition
and disposal of land. Chapter VII contains Section 27 to
31 of the 1966 Act, which are extracted below for the
facility of reference:
Section 27. Application - The provisions

of this Chapter shall apply to such areas from
such dates as have been notified by the State
Government under sub-Section (3) of Section
1.
Section 28. Acquisition of land - (1) If at

any time, in the opinion of the State
Government, any land is required for the
136
purpose of development by the Board, or for

any other purpose in furtherance of the objects
of this Act, the State Government by
Notification, give notice of its intention to
acquire such land.
(2) On a publication of a Notification

under sub-Section (1), the State Government
shall serve notice upon the owner is not the
occupier, on the occupier of the land and on all
such persons known or believed to be
interested therein to show cause, within thirty
days from the date of service of the notice,
why the land should not be acquired.
(3) After considering the cause, if any,

shown by the owner of the land and by any
other person interested therein, and after
giving such owner and person an opportunity
of being heard, the State Government may
pass such orders as it deems fit.
(4) After orders are passed under sub-

Section (3), where the State Government is
satisfied that any land should be acquired for
the purpose specified in the Notification issued
137
under sub-Section (1), a declaration shall, by

Notification in the Official Gazette, be made to
that effect.
(5) On the publication in the official

gazette of the declaration under sub-Section
(4), the land shall vest absolutely in the State
Government free from all encumbrances.
(6) Where any land is vested in the

State Government under Sub-Section (5), the
State Government may, by notice in writing,
order any person who may be in possession of
the land to surrender or deliver possession
thereof to the State Government or any
person duly authorized by it in this behalf
within thirty days of the service of the notice.
(7) If any person refuses or fails to

comply with an order made under sub-Section
(5), the State Government or any Officer
authorized by the State Government in this
behalf may take possession of the land and
may for that purpose use such force as may be
necessary.
138
(8) Where the land has been acquired

for the Board, the State Government, after it
has taken possession of the land, may transfer
the land to the Board for the purpose for which
the land has been acquired.
29. Compensation.—(1) Where any land

is acquired by the State Government under
this Chapter, the State Government shall pay
for such acquisition compensation in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Where the amount of compensation

has been determined by agreement between
the State Government and the person to be
compensated, it shall be paid in accordance
with such agreement.
(3) Where no such agreement can be

reached, the State Government shall refer the
case to the Deputy Commissioner for
determination of the amount of compensation
to be paid for such acquisition as also the
person or persons to whom such compensation
shall be paid.
139
(4) On receipt of a reference under sub-

section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall
serve notice on the owner or occupier of such
land and on all persons known or believed to
be interested herein to appear before him and
state their respective interests in the said land.
30. Application of Central Act 1 of

1894.—The provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) shall mutatis
mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and
award by the Deputy Commissioner, the
reference to Court, the apportionment of
compensation and the payment of
compensation, in respect of lands acquired
under this Chapter.
31. Delegation of powers by the State

Government.—The State Government may if
it thinks fit delegate any of its powers under
this Chapter to any of its officers, by rules
made in this behalf.
31. The 2013 Act is a law relating to acquisition
of land. The relevant extract of statement of objects and
reasons of 2013 Act, read as under:

140
Act. No.30 of 2013 - 1. The Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 is the general law
relating to acquisition of land for public
purposes and also for companies and for
determining the amount of compensation to be
made on account of such acquisition. The
provisions of the said Act have been found to
be inadequate in addressing certain issues
related to the exercise of the statutory powers
of the State for involuntary acquisition of
private land and property. The Act does not
address the issues of rehabilitation and
resettlement to the affected persons and their
families.
2. The definition of the expression

"public purpose" as given in the Act is very
wide. It has therefore, become necessary to
re-define it so as to restrict its scope for
acquisition of land for strategic purposes vital
to the State, and for infrastructure projects
where the benefits accrue to the general
public. The provisions of the Act are also used
for acquiring private lands for companies. This
frequently raises a question mark on the
141
desirability of such State intervention when

land could be arranged by the company
through private negotiations on a "willing
seller-willing buyer" basis, which could be seen
to be a more fair arrangement from the point
of view of the land owner. In order to
streamline the provisions of the Act causing
less hardships to the owners of the land and
other persons dependant upon such land, it in
proposed repeal the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and to replace it with adequate provisions for
rehabilitation and resettlement for the affected
persons and their families.
3. There have been multiple

amendments to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
not only by the Central Government but by the
State Governments as well. Further, there has
been heightened public concern on land
acquisition, especially multi-cropped irrigated
land and there is no central law to adequately
deal with the issues of rehabilitation and
resettlement of displaced persons. As land
acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement
need to be seen as two sides of the same coin,
a single integrated law to deal with the issues
142
of land acquisition and rehabilitation and

resettlement has become necessary. Hence
the proposed legislation proposes to address
concerns of farmers and those whose
livelihoods are dependent on the land being
acquired, while at the same time facilitating
land acquisition for industrialization,
infrastructure and urbanization projects in a
timely and transparent manner.
5. It is now proposed to have a

unified legislation dealing with acquisition of
land, provide for just and fair compensation
and make adequate provisions for
rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for
the affected persons and their families. The
Bill thus provides for repealing and replacing
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with broad
provisions for adequate rehabilitation and
resettlement mechanism for the project
affected persons and their families.
11. "Public purpose" has been

comprehensively defined, so that Government
intervention in acquisition is limited to defence,
certain development projects only. It has also
143
been ensured that consent of at least 80 per

cent of the project affected families is to be
obtained through a prior informed process.
Acquisition under urgency clause has also been
limited for the purposes of national defence,
security purposes and Rehabilitation and
Resettlement needs in the event of
emergencies or natural calamities only.
12. To ensure food security, multi-crop

irrigated land shall be acquired only as a last
resort measure. An equivalent area of
culturable wasteland shall be developed, if
multi-crop land is acquired. In districts where
net sown area is less than 50 percent of total
geographical area, no more than 10 per cent of
the net sown area of the district will be
acquired.
18. The benefits under the new law

would be available in all the cases of land
acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 where award has not been made or
possession of land has not been taken.
144
22. Certain Central Acts dealing with

the land acquisition have been enlisted in the
Bill. The provisions of the Bill are in addition to
and not in derogation of these Acts. The
provisions of this Act can be applied to these
existing enactments by a notification of the
Central Government.
32. The true intent of the Act determines the
validity of an Act. Real and true character of legislation
is found with regard to pith and substance of the Act.
The 2013 Act, which is a law relating to acquisition of
land and matters incidental thereto i.e., rehabilitation is
resettlement and compensation is in pith and substance
the law relating to acquisition of land, has been enacted
in exercise of powers under Entry 42 of List III.
whereas, 1966 Act has been enacted in exercise of
powers under Entry 24 of List II. The 1966 Act is an Act,
which in pith and substance deals with establishment of
Industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and generally
to promote establishment and orderly development of

145
industries therein and for matters incidental thereto. The
1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 24 of List II to
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Both
the enactments i.e., 1966 Act and 2013 Act taken
together, as well as its objects and effect of provisions of
the Act it is evident that the establishment, growth and
development of industries in the State of Karnataka or
development of land for the Board does not fall either
within Entry 7 or Entry 52 of List I to Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that
no declaration under Entry 52 of List I relating to 2013
Act or relating to matters covered by 1966 Act has been
made. Both the Acts have been enacted under different
Entries. Merely because 1966 Act incidentally provides
for acquisition of land for industries, it cannot be held
that 1966 Act has been enacted under Entry 43 of List
III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Since, both the statutes have been enacted under

146
different entries in different Lists, therefore, the question
of repugnancy does not arise.
33. Section 28(1) of 1966 Act, Section 2(a) to (f)
and Section 2(b)(iii) of 2013 Act are extracted below for
facility of reference:
28. Acquisition of Land - (1) If at any

time, in the opinion of the State Government,
any land is required 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.
2. Application of Act.—(1) The

provisions of this Act relating to land
acquisition, compensation, rehabilitation and
resettlement, shall apply, when the
appropriate Government acquires land for its
own use, hold and control, including for Public
Sector Undertakings and for public purpose,
and shall include the following purposes,
namely:—
147
(a) For strategic purposes relating to

naval, military, air force, and armed forces of
the Union, including central paramilitary forces
or any work vital to national security or
defence of India or State police, safety of the
people; or
(b) For infrastructure projects, which
includes the following, namely:—
(i) All activities or items listed in the
notification of the Government of India in the
Department of Economic Affairs (Infrastructure
Section) number 13/6/2009-INF, dated the
27th March, 2012, excluding private hospitals,
private educational institutions and private
hotels;
(ii) Projects involving agro-processing,
supply of inputs to agriculture, warehousing,
cold storage facilities, marketing infrastructure
for agriculture and allied activities such as
dairy, fisheries, and meat processing, set up or
owned by the appropriate Government or by a
farmers' cooperative or by an institution set up
under a statute;
(iii) Project for industrial corridors or
mining activities, national investment and
148
manufacturing zones, as designated in the

National Manufacturing Policy;
(iv) Project for water harvesting and water
conservation structures, sanitation;
(v) Project for Government administered,
Government aided educational and research
schemes or institutions;
(vi) Project for sports, heath care, tourism,
transportation of space programme;
(vii) Any infrastructure facility as may be
notified in this regard by the Central
Government and after tabling of such
notification in Parliament;
(c) Project for project affected families;
(d) Project for housing, or such income
groups, as may be specified from time to time
by the appropriate Government;
(e) Project for planned development or the
improvement of village sites or any site in the
urban areas or provision of land for residential
purposes for the weaker sections in rural and
urban areas;
(f) Project for residential purposes to the
poor or landless or to persons residing in areas
affected by natural calamities, or to persons
149
displaced or affected by reason of the

implementation of any scheme undertaken by
the Government, any local authority or a
corporation owned or controlled by the State.
2. Application of Act.—
(b) For infrastructure projects, which
includes the following, namely:—
(i) xxxxxxxx
(ii) xxxxx
(iii) Project for industrial corridors or
mining activities, national investment and
manufacturing zones, as designated in the
National Manufacturing Policy;
34. It is pertinent to note that Section 28(1) of
the 1966 Act provides that if the State Government is of
the opinion that any land is required for the purpose of
development by the Board, then a Notification will be
issued for acquisition of the land. Thus, the acquisition of
the land under the 1966 Act is for the purpose of
development by the Board which does not fall under any
of the activities as set out in Section 2(1)(a) to (f) of the

150
2013 Act. It is noteworthy that provisions of 2013 Act
apply in respect of project for industrial corridor for
mining activities, national investment and manufacturing
zones, as designed by the National Manufacturing Policy
by virtue of Section 2(b)(iii) of the 2013 Act, whereas,
the provisions of 1966 Act apply to an industrial area
which may be declared to be so by a Notification by a
State Government under the 1966 Act. Thus, both the
Act operate in different fields.
35. Even for the sake of argument, if it is
accepted that both the statutes have been enacted
under the same Entries, yet in order to attract the
principle of repeal, it is required to be shown that there
is irreconcilable conflict between the provisions of the
Act. It is apposite to take note of Section 28 to 30 of
1966 Act and Section 11 to 19, 26 and 28 of the 2013
Act.
151
Section 28 to 30 of 1966 Act Section 11 to 19, 26 & 28 of

2013 Act
28. Acquisition of land.— 11. Publication of
(1) If at any time, in the opinion preliminary notification and
of the State Government, any power of officers
land is required for the purpose thereupon.—(1) Whenever, it
of development by the Board, or appears to the appropriate
for any other purpose in Government that land in any
furtherance of the objects of area is required or likely to be
this Act, the State Government required for any public purpose,
may by notification, give notice a notification (hereinafter
of its intention to acquire such referred to as preliminary
land. notification) to that effect along
with details of the land to be
(2) On publication of a acquired in rural and urban
notification under sub-section areas shall be published in the
(1), the State Government shall following manner, namely:—
serve notice upon the owner or
where the owner is not the (a) in the Official Gazette;
occupier, on the occupier of the
(b) in two daily
land and on all such persons newspapers circulating
known or believed to be in the locality of such
interested therein to show area of which one shall
cause, within thirty days from be in the regional
the date of service of the notice, language;
why the land should not be
(c) in the local language
acquired.
in the Panchayat,
(3) After considering the Municipality or
Municipal Corporation,
cause, if any, shown by the
as the case may be
owner of the land and by any
and in the offices of
other person interested therein, the District Collector,
and after giving such owner and the Sub-divisional
person an opportunity of being Magistrate and the
heard, the State Government Tehsil;
may pass such orders as it
(d) uploaded on the
deems fit.
website of the
(4) After orders are passed appropriate
Government;
under sub-section (3), where
the State Government is (e) in the affected areas,
152
satisfied that any land should be in such manner as

acquired for the purpose may be prescribed.
specified in the notification
(2) Immediately after
issued under sub-section (1), a
issuance of the notification
declaration shall, by notification
under sub-section (1), the
in the official Gazette, be made
concerned Gram Sabha or
to that effect.
Sabhas at the village level,
(5) On the publication in the municipalities in case of
official Gazette of the municipal areas and the
declaration under sub-section Autonomous Councils in case of
(4), the land shall vest the areas referred to in the
absolutely in the State Sixth Schedule to the
Government free from all Constitution, shall be informed
encumbrances. of the contents of the
notification issued under the
(6) Where any land is vested said sub-section in all cases of
in the State Government under land acquisition at a meeting
sub-section (5), the State called especially for this
Government may, by notice in purpose.
writing, order any person who
may be in possession of the (3) The notification issued
land to surrender or deliver under sub-section (1) shall also
possession thereof to the State contain a statement on the
Government or any person duly nature of the public purpose
authorised by it in this behalf involved, reasons necessitating
within thirty days of the service the displacement of affected
of the notice. persons, summary of the Social
Impact Assessment Report and
(7) If any person refuses or particulars of the Administrator
fails to comply with an order appointed for the purposes of
made under sub-section (5), the rehabilitation and resettlement
State Government or any officer under Section 43.
authorised by the State
Government in this behalf may (4) No person shall make
take possession of the land and any transaction or cause any
may for that purpose use such transaction of land specified in
force as may be necessary. the preliminary notification or
create any encumbrances on
(8) Where the land has been such land from the date of
acquired for the Board, the publication of such notification
State Government, after it has till such time as the proceedings
153
taken possession of the land, under this Chapter are

may transfer the land to the completed:
Board for the purpose for which
the land has been acquired. Provided that the Collector
may, on the application made
by the owner of the land so
notified, exempt in special
circumstances to be recorded in
writing, such owner from the
operation of this sub-section:
Provided further that any

loss or injury suffered by any
person due to his wilful violation
of this provision shall not be
made up by the Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice

Collector shall, before the issue
of a declaration under Section
19, undertake and complete the
exercise of updating of land
records as prescribed within a
period of two months.
29. Compensation.—(1) 12. Preliminary survey of

Where any land is acquired by land and power of officers to
the State Government under carry out survey.—For the
this Chapter, the State
purposes of enabling the
Government shall pay for such appropriate Government to
acquisition compensation in
determine the extent of land to
accordance with the provisionsbe acquired, it shall be lawful for
of this Act. any officer, either generally or
specially authorised by such
(2) Where the amount of Government in this behalf, and
compensation has been for his servants and workmen,—
determined by agreement
between the State Government (a) to enter upon and
and the person to be survey and take levels
of any land in such
154
compensated, it shall be paid in locality;

accordance with such
(b) to dig or bore into the
agreement. sub-soil;
(3) Where no such (c) to do all other acts
agreement can be reached, the necessary to ascertain
State Government shall refer whether the land is
the case to the Deputy adapted for such
Commissioner for determination purpose;
of the amount of compensation
(d) to set out the
to be paid for such acquisition boundaries of the land
as also the person or persons to proposed to be taken
whom such compensation shall and the intended line
be paid. of the work (if any)
proposed to be made
(4) On receipt of a reference thereon; and
Deputy Commissioner shall (e) to mark such levels,
serve notice on the owner or boundaries and line by
placing marks and
occupier of such land and on all
cutting trenches and
persons known or believed to be where otherwise the
interested herein to appear survey cannot be
before him and state their completed and the
respective interests in the said levels taken and the
land. boundaries and line
marked, to cut down
and clear away any
part of any standing
crop, fence or jungle:
Provided that no act under

clauses (a) to (e) in respect of
land shall be conducted in the
absence of the owner of the
land or in the absence of any
person authorised in writing by
the owner:
Provided further that the

acts specified under the first
proviso may be undertaken in
the absence of the owner, if the
155
owner has been afforded a

reasonable opportunity to be
present during the survey, by
giving a notice of at least sixty
days prior to such survey:
Provided also that no person

shall enter into any building or
upon any enclosed court or
garden attached to a dwelling-
house (unless with the consent
of the occupier thereof) without
previously giving such occupier
at least seven days' notice in
writing of his intention to do so.
30. Application of Central Act 13. Payment for

1 of 1894.—The provisions of damage.—The officer so
authorised under Section 12
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
shall at the time of entry under
(Central Act 1 of 1894) Section 12 pay or tender
shall mutatis mutandis apply in payment for any damage
caused, and, in case of dispute
respect of the enquiry and
as to the sufficiency of the
award by the Deputy amount so paid or tendered, he
Commissioner, the reference to shall at once refer the dispute to
the decision of the Collector or
Court, the apportionment of
other chief revenue officer of
compensation and the payment the district, and such decision
of compensation, in respect of shall be final.
lands acquired under this

Chapter.
31. Delegation of powers 14. Lapse of Social Impact

by the State Government.— Assessment Report.—Where a
The State Government may if it preliminary notification under
thinks fit delegate any of its Section 11 is not issued within
powers under this Chapter to twelve months from the date of
any of its officers, by rules appraisal of the Social Impact
156
made in this behalf. Assessment report submitted by

the Expert Group under Section
7, then, such report shall be
deemed to have lapsed and a
fresh Social Impact Assessment
shall be required to be
undertaken prior to acquisition
proceedings under Section 11:
Provided that the appropriate

Government, shall have the
power to extend the period of
twelve months, if in its opinion
circumstances exist justifying
the same:
Provided further that any

such decision to extend the
period shall be recorded in
writing and the same shall be
notified and be uploaded on the
website of the authority
concerned.
15. Hearing of
objections.—(1) Any person
interested in any land which has
been notified under sub-section
(1) of Section 11, as being
required or likely to be required
for a public purpose, may within
sixty days from the date of the
publication of the preliminary
notification, object to—
(a) the area and

suitability of land
proposed to be
acquired;
(b) justification offered

157
for public purpose;
(c) the findings of the

Social Impact
Assessment report.
(2) Every objection under

sub-section (1) shall be made to
the Collector in writing, and the
Collector shall give the objector
an opportunity of being heard in
person or by any person
authorised by him in this behalf
or by an Advocate and shall,
after hearing all such objections
and after making such further
inquiry, if any, as he thinks
necessary, either make a report
in respect of the land which has
been notified under sub-section
(1) of Section 11, or make
different reports in respect of
different parcels of such land, to
the appropriate Government,
containing his recommendations
on the objections, together with
the record of the proceedings
held by him along with a
separate report giving therein
the approximate cost of land
acquisition, particulars as to the
number of affected families
likely to be resettled, for the
decision of that Government.
(3) The decision of the

appropriate Government on the
objections made under sub-
section (2) shall be final.
158
16. Preparation of
Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme by the
Administrator.—(1) Upon the
publication of the preliminary
notification under sub-section
(1) of Section 11 by the
Collector, the Administrator for
Rehabilitation and Resettlement
shall conduct a survey and
undertake a census of the
affected families, in such
manner and within such time as
may be prescribed, which shall
include—
(a) particulars of lands

and immovable
properties being
acquired of each
affected family;
(b) livelihoods lost in

respect of land losers
and landless whose
livelihoods are
primarily dependent
on the lands being
acquired;
(c) a list of public utilities

and Government
buildings which are
affected or likely to be
affected, where
resettlement of
affected families is
involved;
(d) details of the

amenities and
infrastructural facilities
which are affected or
likely to be affected,
159
where resettlement of
affected families is
involved; and
(e) details of any

common property
resources being
acquired.
(2) The Administrator shall,

based on the survey and census
under sub-section (1), prepare a
draft Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme, as
prescribed which shall include
particulars of the rehabilitation
and resettlement entitlements
of each land owner and landless
whose livelihoods are primarily
dependent on the lands being
acquired and where
resettlement of affected families
is involved—
(i) a list of Government

buildings to be
provided in the
Resettlement area;
(ii) details of the public

amenities and
infrastructural facilities
which are to be
provided in the
Resettlement Area.
(3) The draft Rehabilitation

and Resettlement scheme
referred to in sub-section (2)
shall include time limit for
implementing Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme;
(4) The draft Rehabilitation

160
and Resettlement scheme

shall be made known locally by
wide publicity in the affected
area and discussed in the
concerned Gram Sabhas or
Municipalities.
(5) A public hearing shall be

conducted in such manner as
may be prescribed, after giving
adequate publicity about the
date, time and venue for the
public hearing at the affected
area:
Provided that in case where

an affected area involves more
than one Gram Panchayat or
Municipality, public hearings
shall be conducted in every
Gram Sabha and Municipality
where more than twenty-five
per cent of land belonging to
that Gram Sabha or Municipality
is being acquired:

consultation with the Gram
Sabha in Scheduled Areas shall
be in accordance with the
provisions of the Panchayats
(Extension to the Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996 (40 of 1996).
(6) The Administrator shall,

on completion of public hearing
submit the draft Scheme for
along with a specific report on
the claims and objections raised
in the public hearing to the
161
Collector.
17. Review of the

Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme.—(1)
The Collector shall review the
draft Scheme submitted under
sub-section (6) of Section 16 by
the Administrator with the
Committee at the project level
constituted under Section 45;
(2) The Collector shall

submit the draft Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Scheme with
his suggestions to the
Commissioner Rehabilitation
and Resettlement for approval
of the Scheme.
18. Approved
Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme to be
made public.—The
Commissioner shall cause the
approved Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme to be
made available in the local
language to the Panchayat,
Municipality or Municipal
Corporation, as the case may
be, and the offices of the
District Collector, the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and the
Tehsil, and shall be published in
the affected areas, in such
manner as may be prescribed,
162
and uploaded on the website of

the appropriate Government.
19. Publication of
declaration and summary of
Rehabilitation and
Resettlement.—(1) When the
appropriate Government is
satisfied, after considering the
report, if any, made under sub-
section (2) of Section 15, that
any particular land is needed for
a public purpose, a declaration
shall be made to that effect,
along with a declaration of an
area identified as the
“resettlement area” for the
purposes of rehabilitation and
resettlement of the affected
families, under the hand and
seal of a Secretary to such
Government or of any other
officer duly authorised to certify
its orders and different
declarations may be made from
time to time in respect of
different parcels of any land
covered by the same
preliminary notification
irrespective of whether one
report or different reports has or
have been made (wherever
required).
(2) The Collector shall

publish a summary of the
Scheme along with draft
declaration referred to in sub-
section (1):
163
Provided that no declaration

under this sub-section shall be
made unless the summary of
the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Scheme is
published along with such
declaration:
Provided further that no

declaration under this sub-
section shall be made unless the
Requiring Body deposits an
amount, in full or part, as may
be prescribed by the appropriate
Government toward the cost of
acquisition of the land:
Provided also that the

Requiring Body shall deposit the
amount promptly so as to
enable the appropriate
Government to publish the
declaration within a period of
twelve months from the date of
the publication of preliminary
notification under Section 11.
(3) In projects where land is

acquired in stages, the
application for acquisition itself
can specify different stages for
the rehabilitation and
resettlement, and all
declarations shall be made
according to the stages so
specified.
(4) Every declaration

shall be published in the
following manner, namely:—
164
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily

newspapers being
circulated in the
locality, of such area
of which one shall be
in the regional
language;
(c) in the local language

in the Panchayat,
Municipality or
Municipal Corporation,
as the case may be,
and in the offices of
the District Collector,
the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the
Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the

website of the
appropriate
Government;
(e) in the affected areas,

in such manner as
may be prescribed.
(5) Every declaration

shall indicate,—
(a) the district or other

territorial division in
which the land is
situated;
(b) the purpose for which

it is needed, its
approximate area; and
(c) where a plan shall

have been made for
the land, the place at
165
which such plan may

be inspected without
any cost.
(6) The declaration referred

to in sub-section (1) shall be
conclusive evidence that the
land is required for a public
purpose and, after making such
declaration, the appropriate
Government may acquire the
land in such manner as specified
under this Act.
(7) Where no declaration is

made under sub-section (1)
within twelve months from the
date of preliminary notification,
then such notification shall be
deemed to have been
rescinded:
Provided that in computing

the period referred to in this
sub-section, any period or
periods during which the
proceedings for the acquisition
of the land were held up on
account of any stay or
injunction by the order of any
court shall be excluded:

appropriate Government shall
have the power to extend the
period of twelve months, if in its
opinion circumstances exist
justifying the same:
Provided also that any such

decision to extend the period
shall be recorded in writing and
166
the same shall be notified and

be uploaded on the website of
the authority concerned.
26. Determination of market

value of land by Collector.—(1)
The Collector shall adopt the
following criteria in assessing
and determining the market
value of the land, namely:—
(a) the market value, if

any, specified in the
Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) for
the registration of sale
deeds or agreements
to sell, as the case
may be, in the area,
where the land is
situated; or
(b) the average sale price

for similar type of land
situated in the nearest
village or nearest
vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of

compensation as
agreed upon under
sub-section (2) of
Section 2 in case of
acquisition of lands for
private companies or
for public private
partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for

167
determination of market value

shall be the date on which the
notification has been issued
under Section 11.
Explanation 1.—The average

sale price referred to in clause
(b) shall be determined taking
into account the sale deeds or
the agreements to sell
registered for similar type of
area in the near village or near
vicinity area during immediately
preceding three years of the
year in which such acquisition of
land is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.—For
determining the average sale
price referred to in Explanation
1, one-half of the total number
of sale deeds or the agreements
to sell in which the highest sale
price has been mentioned shall
be taken into account.
Explanation 3.—While
determining the market value
under this section and the
average sale price referred to in
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2,
any price paid as compensation
for land acquired under the
provisions of this Act on an
earlier occasion in the district
shall not be taken into
consideration.
Explanation 4.—While
determining the market value
under this section and the
average sale price referred to in
168
Explanation 1 or Explanation 2,
any price paid, which in the
opinion of the Collector is not
indicative of actual prevailing
market value may be discounted
for the purposes of calculating
market value.
(2) The market value

calculated as per sub-section
(1) shall be multiplied by a
factor to be specified in the First
Schedule.
(3) Where the market value

under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) cannot be
determined for the reason
that—
(a) the land is situated in

such area where the
transactions in land
are restricted by or
under any other law
for the time being in
force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale

deeds or agreements
to sell as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-
section (1) for similar
land are not available
for the immediately
preceding three years;
or
(c) the market value has

not been specified
under the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of
169
1899) by the
appropriate authority,
the State Government

concerned shall specify the floor
price or minimum price per unit
area of the said land based on
the price calculated in the
manner specified in sub-section
(1) in respect of similar types of
land situated in the immediate
adjoining areas:
Provided that in a case

where the Requiring Body offers
its shares to the owners of the
lands (whose lands have been
acquired) as a part
compensation, for acquisition of
land, such shares in no case
shall exceed twenty-five per
cent of the value so calculated
under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) as
the case may be:

Requiring Body shall in no case
compel any owner of the land
(whose land has been acquired)
to take its shares, the value of
which is deductible in the value
of the land calculated under
sub-section (1):

Collector shall, before initiation
of any land acquisition
proceedings in any area, take all
necessary steps to revise and
update the market value of the
land on the basis of the
170
prevalent market rate in that

area:

appropriate Government shall
ensure that the market value
determined for acquisition of
any land or property of an
educational institution
established and administered by
a religious or linguistic minority
shall be such as would not
restrict or abrogate the right to
establish and administer
educational institutions of their
choice.
28. Parameters to be
considered by Collector in
determination of award.—In
determining the amount of
compensation to be awarded for
land acquired under this Act, the
Collector shall take into
consideration—
firstly, the market value

as determined under Section
26 and the award amount in
accordance with the First and
Second Schedules;
secondly, the damage

sustained by the person
interested, by reason of the
taking of any standing crops
and trees which may be on
the land at the time of the
Collector's taking possession
thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if

171
any) sustained by the person

interested, at the time of the
of the land, by reason of
severing such land from his
other land;
fourthly, the damage (if

any) sustained by the person
interested, at the time of the
of the land, by reason of the
acquisition injuriously
affecting his other property,
movable or immovable, in
any other manner, or his
earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of
the acquisition of the land by
the Collector, the person
interested is compelled to
change his residence or place
of business, the reasonable
expenses (if any) incidental
to such change;
sixthly, the damage (if any)

bona fide resulting from
diminution of the profits of the
land between the time of the
publication of the declaration
under Section 19 and the time
of the Collector's taking
possession of the land; and
seventhly, any other ground

which may be in the interest of
equity, justice and beneficial to
the affected families.
172
36. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid
provisions, it is evident that the aforesaid provisions are
not in conflict with each other and can co-exist and
essentially deal with the fundamental concepts of
acquisition viz., providing an opportunity of hearing to
the owners of the land and for determination of
compensation. Availability of two procedures for
acquisition and compensation would not per se invalidate
one of them.
37. Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India
reads as under:
254. Inconsistency between laws

made by Parliament and laws made by the
Legislatures of States-
(1) xxxx
(2) Where a law made by the legislature
of a State with respect to one of the matters
enumerated in the concurrent list contains any
provision repugnant to the provisions of an
earlier law made by Parliament or an existing
law with respect to that matter, then, the law
173
so made by the Legislature of such State shall,

if it has been reserved for the consideration of
the President and has received his assent,
prevail in that State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall

prevent Parliament from enacting at any time
any law with respect to the same matter
including a law adding to, amending, varying
or repealing the law so made by the
Legislature of the State.
38. Thus, in exercise of powers under Proviso to
Article 254(2), the Parliament can enact an subsequent
law in respect of same matter, in respect of which State
legislature has enacted a law under Article 254 (2). The
1966 Act and 2013 Act have been enacted in respect of
different subject matters as stated hereinabove.
Therefore, Article 254(2) does not apply to the fact
situation of these cases.

174
For the aforementioned reasons, we answer issue
No.1 in the negative and hold that provisions of 1966
Act are not repugnant to 2013 Act.
ISSUE NO.2
(2) Whether the Karnataka Industrial Areas

Development Act, 1966 is impliedly repealed on coming
into force of the Right to Fair Compensation ad
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
39. The principle that a prior special law is held to
be impliedly repealed by later general law has been dealt
with succinctly by Justice G.P.Singh in Principles of
Statutory Interpretation 14th Edition Page 741, which
read as under:
As an application of the above principles

a prior particular or special law is not readily
held to be impliedly repealed by later
general enactment. The particular or special
law deals only with a particular phase of the
subject covered by the general law and,
therefore, a reconciliation is normally
possible between a prior particular Act and a
175
later general Act and so the particular Act is

construed as an exception or qualification of
the general Act. To quote the words of Lord
Philimore, "it is a sound principle of all
jurisprudence that a prior particular law is
not easily to be held to be abrogated by a
posterior law, expressed in general terms
and by the apparent generality of its
language applicable to and covering a
number of cases, of which the particular law
is but one. This, as a matter of
jurisprudence, as understood in England, has
been laid down in a great number of cases,
whether the prior law be an express statute,
or be the underlying common or customary
law of the country. Where general words in a
later Act are capable of reasonable and
sensible application without extending them
to subjects specially dealt with by earlier
legislation, that earlier and special legislation
is not be held indirectly repealed, altered, or
derogated from merely by force of such
general words, without any indication of a
particular intention to do so.
176
40. The Supreme Court in 'MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL PALI VS. T.J.JOSPEH', AIR 1963 SC 1561
while dealing with Doctrine of implied repeal has held
that there is a presumption against an implied repeal.
The reason for this rule is based on the theory that
legislature while enacting a law has complete knowledge
of existing laws on the same subject matter and
therefore when it does not provide a repealing provision,
it gives an intention not to repeal the existing legislation.
The concept of implied repeal applies under two
contingencies. (i) if the dominant legislature proposes to
occupy the entire field in what is popularly called as
"doctrine of occupied field" and (ii) if the special law is
enacted in respect of the field in which the general law
occupies. The aforesaid principles were reiterated in
'K.T.PLANTATION (P.) LTD. VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA', (2011) 9 SCC 1 and 'LALSHAH BABA
DARGAH TRUST VS. MAGNUM DEVELOPERS',

177
(2015) 17 SCC 65 and 'UNION OF INDIA VS.
RANJEET KUMAR SAHA', (2019) 7 SCC 505.
41. Section 103 of 2013 Act reads as under:
103. Provisions to be in addition to

existing laws.—The provisions of this Act
shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of, any other law for the time
being in force.
42. Thus, it is evident that the provisions of 2013
Act are in addition to any other law for the time being in
force. In other words, from Section 103 of 2013 Act, it
can safely be inferred that parliament while enacting
2013 Act had the knowledge of existing laws and did not
provide for a provision for repealing the same.
Therefore, the Doctrine of implied repeal cannot be
invoked in the fact situation of the case. As already
noticed, 2013 Act is a law relating to acquisition under
Entry 42 of List III and 1966 Act is a law relating to
industries under Entry 24 of List II of the seventh

178
schedule to the Constitution of India. Thus, 2013 Act
does not deal with the prohibited field viz., industries
and therefore, the doctrine of occupied field does not
apply to the fact situation of the case. Similarly, 2013
Act is not a special law and therefore, it is not a case
where special law is enacted in respect of field, which
general law occupies. Therefore, 2013 Act not being a
special law does not occupy the field in respect of
subject matter in respect of which 1966 Act has been
enacted. Thus, the issue No.2 is also answered in the
negative and it is held that provisions of 1966 Act are
not impliedly repeal on coming to force of 2013 Act.
ISSUE NO.3.
(3) Whether Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 is a special enactment vis a vis
Right to Fair Compensation and transparency in Land
2013?
179
43. The Supreme Court in 'MUNITHIMMAIAH
VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', (2002) 4 SCC 326 while
dealing with provisions of Bangalore Development
Authority, 1976 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held that
Bangalore Development Authority Act is an Act to
provide for the establishment of a development authority
to facilitate and ensure land growth and development of
the city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and the
acquisition of any land for such development is merely
incidental to the main object of the Act i.e., development
of Bangalore Metropolitan Area and in pith and
substance the Bangalore Development Authority Act
squarely falls under Entry 5 of List II of seventh
Schedule and is not a law for acquisition of land like land
Acquisition Act, 1894 traceable to Entry 42 of List III of
seventh schedule. The aforesaid view was reiterated in
'BONDU RANGASWAMY VS. BDA', (2010) 7 SCC
129.
180
44. The 1966 Act had been enacted with the
object of establishment of industrial areas, promoting
the establishment and orderly development of industries
and establishment of industrial areas development
board. The 1966 Act incidentally deals with acquisition of
land for the purposes of development by the Board. In
pith and substance the 1966 Act is the law enacted
under Entry 24 of List II of the seventh schedule to the
Constitution of India and is a law enacted with sole
purpose of development of industrial areas, industrial
estates and growth and development of industries within
the State. Therefore, 1966 Act is a special law, whereas,
2013 Act, which deals with acquisition of the land is a
general law. Thus, the third issue is answered.
ISSUE NO.4
(4) Whether the sanction given by the President on
26.05.1966 to Karnataka Act No.18 of 1966, stood
lapsed or come to end on coming into force of the 2013
Act?
181
45. The relevant extract of Article 31 of the
Constitution of India prior to its repeal by Constitution
(Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 read as under:
“31. Compulsory acquisition of property –

(1) No person shall be deprived of his
property save by authority of law.
(2) No property shall be compulsorily

acquired or requisitioned save for a public
purpose and save by authority of a law which
provides for acquisition or requisitioning of
the property for an amount which may be
fixed by such law or which may be
determined in accordance with such principles
and given in such manner as may be specified
in such law; and no such law shall be called in
question in any Court on the ground that the
amount so fixed or determined is not
adequate or that the whole or any part of
such amount is to be given otherwise than in
cash:
Provided that in making any law providing

for the compulsory acquisition of any property
182
of an educational institution established and

administered by a minority, referred to in
clause (1) of article 30, The State shall ensure
that the amount fixed or determined under
such law for the acquisition of such property
in such as would not restrict or abrogate the
right guaranteed under that clause.
(2-A) Where a law does not provide for

the transfer of the ownership or right to
possession of any property to the State or to
a corporation owned or controlled by the
State, it shall not be deemed to provide for
the compulsory acquisition or requisitioning of
property, notwithstanding that it deprives any
person of his property.
(2-B) Nothing in sub-clause (f) of clause

(1) of article 19 shall affect any such law as is
referred to in clause (2).
(3) No such law as is referred to in clause

(2) made by the Legislature of a State shall
have effect unless such law, having been
reserved for the consideration of the
President, has received his assent”.
183
Thus in respect of law which provided for
compulsory acquisition of a property for a public purpose
enacted by legislature of a state, and assent of the
president was required to be taken, in order to make
such a law effective. The 1966 Act received assent of the
President of India on 14th May, 1966.
46. Article 31A of the Constitution of India deals
with saving of laws providing for acquisition of estates
which is extracted below for the facility of reference:
“31A. Saving of laws providing for

acquisition of estates, etc ( 1 )
Notwithstanding anything contained in Article
13, no law providing for
(a) the acquisition by the State of any
estate or of any rights therein or the
extinguishment or modification of any such
rights, or
(b) the taking over of the management of
any property by the State for a limited period
either in the public interest or in order to
184
secure the proper management of the

property, or
(c) the amalgamation of two or more
corporations either in the public interest or in
order to secure the proper management of
any of the corporations, or
(d) the extinguishment or modification of
any rights of managing agents, secretaries
and treasurers, managing directors, directors
or managers of corporations, or of any voting
rights of shareholders thereof, or
(e) the extinguishment or modification of
any rights accruing by virtue of any
agreement, lease or licence for the purpose of
searching for, or winning, any mineral or
mineral oil, or the premature termination or
cancellation of any such agreement, lease or
licence, shall be deemed to be void on the
ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes
away or abridges any of the rights conferred
by Article 14 or Article 19: Provided that
where such law is a law made by the
Legislature of a State, the provisions of this
article shall not apply thereto unless such law,
having been reserved for the consideration of
185
the President, has received his assent:

Provided further that where any law makes
any provision for the acquisition by the State
of any estate and where any land comprised
therein is held by a person under his personal
cultivation, it shall not be lawful for the State
to acquire any portion of such land as is
within the ceiling limit applicable to him under
any law for the time being in force or any
building or structure standing thereon or
appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating
to the acquisition of such land, building or
structure, provides for payment of
compensation at a rate which shall not be less
than the market value thereof”
47. Thus, regarding the law framed by state
legislature in respect of subject matter provided in
clauses (a) to (e) of Article 31A(1), which includes the
law providing for acquisition of estates, assent of the
President is required to be taken before such a law
enacted by the state legislature becomes effective.

186
48. The Supreme Court in K.T.PLANTATION V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 9 SCC 1, has held as
under:
“111. We are of the considered view that

the Acquisition Act, in this case, as rightly
contended by the State, primarily falls under
List II Entry 18, since the dominant intention
of the legislature was to preserve and protect
Roerichs Estate covered by the provisions of
the Land Reforms Act, on the State
Government withdrawing the exemption in
respect of the land used for linaloe cultivation.
The Acquisition Act, though primarily falls
under List II Entry 18 incidentally, also deals
with the acquisition of paintings, artefacts and
other valuable belongings of the Roerichs and,
hence the Act partly falls under List III Entry
42 as well. Since the dominant purpose of the
Act was to preserve and protect Roerichs
Estate as part of agrarian reforms, the
inclusion of ancillary measures would not
throw the law out of the protection of Article
31-A(1)(a).
187
112. On the other hand, the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 is an Act which fell
exclusively under List III Entry 42 and
enacted for the purpose of acquisition of land
needed for public purposes for companies and
for determining the amount of compensation
to be made on account of such acquisition,
which is substantially and materially different
from the impugned Act whose dominant
purpose is to preserve and protect “estate”
governed by Article 31-A(1)(a) read with
Article 31-A(2)(a)(iii) of the Constitution.
113. We are, therefore, pf the considered

view that no assent of the President was
required under Article 254(2) of the
Constitution to sustain the impugned Act,
which falls under Article 31-A(1)(a) of the
Constitution, for which the assent of the
President was obtained. The contention of the
counsel that the Acquisition Act was invalid
due to repugnancy is, therefore, rejected”
49. Thus, there is a fundamental distinction between
obtaining assent of the President under Article 31A(1) of

188
the Constitution and Article 254(2) of the Constitution of
India. The assent of the President under Article 254(2)
of the Constitution is required to be taken when there is
a repugnancy between the law enacted by the State
legislature and the Parliament. In the instant case, the
1966 Act as well as 2013 Act have been enacted under
Entry 24 of List II and Entry 42 of List III of Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India. A part of the state
legislation affects property rights, therefore the assent of
President of India is taken under Article 31A(1) of the
Constitution of India and no assent was required to be
taken under Article 254(2) of the Constitution as there is
no repugnancy between the 1966 Act and 2013 Act.
Even otherwise merely because assent of the President
has been taken, the presumption with regard to
repugnancy does not arise as the burden to prove that
there has been repeal by implication lies on the party
asserting the same which has not been discharged in
this case.
189
For the aforementioned reasons, the fourth issue is
also answered in the negative and it is held that assent
granted by the President on 26.05.1996 to 1966 Act did
not lapse on coming into force of 2013 Act.
ISSUE NO.5.
(5) What is the effect of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka
Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No.16 of 2019) on Right to
Fair Compensation and transparency in Land
2013?
50. The provisions of 2013 Act have been
amended by the State Legislature by the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Amendment) Act, 2019, the aforesaid amendment act
had received the assent of the President on 16.07.2019.

190
By the aforesaid Amendment Act, several provisions of
2013 Act have been amended, however, the
amendments which are relevant for decision of the
controversy involved in these appeals are, Amendment
of Section 2, insertion of Sections 10A, 23A, 30A and
31A. The aforesaid provisions are extracted below for
the facility of reference:
10-A. Power of State Government to

exempt certain projects.- The State
Government may in the public interest, by
notification in the Official Gazette, exempt
any of the following projects from the
application of the provisions of Chapter II and
Chapter III of this Act, namely:- (a) such
projects vital to national security or defence
of India and every part thereof, including
preparation for defence or defence
production; (b) infrastructure projects
including educational institutions, Hospitals,
Government or Local Self Government Offices
electrification, irrigation projects and drinking
water projects; and (c) affordable housing
and housing for the poor people." (d)
191
industrial corridors set up by the State

Government and its undertaking (in which
case the land shall be acquired up to such
distance on both sides of designated railway
lines or roads and as specified by the State
Government for specific projects from time to
time and notified as such in State Gazette);
and (e) infrastructure projects, including
projects under public-private partnership
where the ownership of the land continues to
vest with the State Government: Provided
that, the State Government shall, before the
issue of notification, ensure the extent of land
for the proposed acquisition keeping in view
the minimum land required for such project”
“23-A. Award of Deputy Commissioner

without enquiry in case of agreement of
interested persons:- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in section 23, if at any
stage of the proceedings, the Deputy
Commissioner is satisfied that all the persons
interested in the land who appeared before
him have agreed in writing on the matters to
be included in the award of the Deputy
192
Commissioner in the form prescribed by rules

made by the State Government, he may,
without making further enquiry, make an
award according to the terms of such
agreement”. (2) The determination of
compensation for any land under sub-section
(1) shall not in any way affect the
determination of compensation in respect of
other land in the same locality or elsewhere in
accordance with the other provisions of this
Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained
in the Registration Act, 1908(Central Act 16 of
1908), no agreement made under sub-section
(1) shall be liable to registration under that
Act.
30-A. Acquisition of land by the State

Government by entering into agreement
voluntary Acquisition of Land.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Act, or any other law, whenever it appears to
the State Government that the land is needed
in any area for any public purpose, the State
Government or its Authorised Officer may
enter into an agreement with the willing land
owner to sell the land in favour of the State
193
Government for the matters specified therein

in a prescribed form. (2) The State
Government or its authorized officer shall
pass an order in terms of agreement under
sub-section (1) for acquisition, and the
substance of the order shall be notified in the
official Gazette. On such publication of
notification, the title, ownership and all
interests of the land owner who enters into
agreement shall vest with the State
Government free from all encumbrances. (3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Registration Act, 1908(Central Act16 of 1908)
no agreement entered under sub-section (1)
shall be liable for registration under that Act.
(4) If any family, other than the family of the
land owner who entered into an agreement, is
affected by the acquisition of land under this
section, the State Government shall pay a
lump-sum amount towards rehabilitation and
resettlement if any, as prescribed in the rules
made thereunder: 5 Provided that, no
agreement or the lump-sum amount towards
rehabilitation and resettlement as may be
194
prescribed, shall be abnormally at variance to

the disadvantage of the land owners.
"31-A. Payment of Lump-sum amount by

State Government.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, whenever the land is to
be acquired for any projects as notified in
section 10-A, it shall be competent for the
State Government to pay such lump sum
amount as may be prescribed in the rules in
lieu of Rehabilitation and Resettlement:
Provided that the payment of such lump-sum
amount in lieu of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement as may be prescribed, shall not
be abnormally at variance to the
disadvantage of the affected families.
51. By the aforesaid Amendment Act, the state
government has been granted the power to exempt the
projects mentioned therein from the application of
Chapter II and III of the Act. The KIADB vide its
resolution dated 27.08.2016 has resolved to determine
the amount of compensation in respect of the land which

195
may be acquired under 1966 Act as per Schedule I of
2013 Act. Therefore, the grievance of the owners of the
land in so far as it pertains to payment of lesser
compensation under 1966 Act does not survive. It has
been urged on behalf of the owners of the land that the
provisions of the Karnataka Amendment Act 2019 are
arbitrary and are opposed to all canons of law and
voilative of Article 21. However, except for making such
a statement no material has been brought on record to
show as to how the provisions of Amendment Act are
either arbitrary, voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India or unconstitutional. The provisions of the
Amendment Act cannot also be said to be in violation of
section 108 of 2013 Act which provides an option to the
affected families to avail better compensation an
rehabilitation and resettlement, if state law or policy so
provides. Thus, it is held that provisions of 2013 Act
have been validly amended by the State legislature.
Accordingly the issue No.5 is answered.

196
ISSUE NO.6
(6) Whether provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013
Act apply to proceeding under 1966 Act?
52. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra.
The Supreme Court in 'SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER VS. ANUSUYA BAI', (2017) 3 SCC 313
while dealing with the issue regarding applicability of
Section 24(2) of 2013 Act to proceeding under 1966 Act
has held as under:
28. The Division Bench of the High Court

by the impugned judgment [Anasuya
Bai v. State of Karnataka, 2015 SCC OnLine
Kar 2220] , however, has quashed the
acquisition proceedings itself holding that
they have lapsed. For this purpose, the High
Court has taken aid of Section 24 of the new
LA Act in the following manner: (Anasuya Bai
case [Anasuya Bai v. State of Karnataka,
2015 SCC OnLine Kar 2220] , SCC OnLine Kar
paras 13-14)
197
“13. It is also noted that the acquisition

proceedings including preliminary and final
declaration have been passed under the
provisions of the KIAD Act. But there is no
provision under the KIAD Act to pass an
award and award has to be passed only under
the provisions of the LA Act, 1894. If the
award has to be passed under the LA Act,
whether the new Act can be pressed into
service to hold the acquisition proceedings are
lapsed on account of non-passing of award
within a period of 5 years under Section 11. If
the award is passed under the LA Act, the
enquiry has to be conducted by the Deputy
Commissioner or Collector before passing the
award. Section 11-A contemplates that if the
award is not passed within 2 years from the
date of publication of the final declaration, the
entire proceedings for acquisition of the land
shall automatically stands lapsed. It is no
doubt true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka [M.
Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011)
3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] has
held that Section 11-A of the Act is no
198
application in respect of the land acquired

under the provisions of the Karnataka
Industrial Areas Development Act. We have to
consider in this appeal as to whether Section
24(2) of the new Act is applicable in order to
hold that the acquisition proceedings deemed
to be lapsed due to non-payment of
compensation and non-passing of the award
within a period of five years from the date of
declaration and with effect from non-payment
of compensation to the landowners.
14. The new Act does not say whether

the Act is applicable to the land acquired
under the provisions of the Karnataka Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. What Section 24 says
that if the award is not passed under Section
11 of the Act and the compensation is not
paid within 5 years or more prior to new Act,
if the physical possession of the land is taken
or not especially the compensation is not paid
or deposited in Court such proceedings deem
to have been lapsed. In the instant case, it is
not the case of the respondent that award is
not required to be passed under the
provisions of the LA Act. When the award is
199
required to be passed under the LA Act, the

respondents cannot contend that the
provisions of the new Act cannot be made
applicable on account of non-payment of
compensation within a period of five years.”
29. This approach of the High Court, we

find, to be totally erroneous. In the first
instance, the matter is not properly
appreciated by ignoring the important aspects
mentioned in para 28 above. Secondly, effect
of non-applicability of Section 11-A of the old
LA Act is not rightly understood. The High
Court was not oblivious of the judgment of
this Court in M. Nagabhushana case [M.
3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] which is
referred by it in the aforesaid discussion itself.
This judgment categorically holds that once
the proceedings are initiated under the KIAD
Act, Section 11-A of the old LA Act would not
be applicable. Such an opinion of the Court is
based on the following rationale: (M.
Nagabhushana case [M.
200
3 SCC 408 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 733] , SCC

pp. 420-22, paras 29-36)
“29. The appellant has not challenged the
validity of the aforesaid provisions. Therefore,
on a combined reading of the provisions of
Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, it
is clear that on the publication of the
Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD
Act i.e. from 30-3-2004, the land in question
vested in the State free from all
encumbrances by operation of Section 28(5)
of the KIAD Act, whereas the land acquired
under the said Act vests only under Section
16 thereof, which runs as under:
‘16. Power to take possession.—When the
Collector has made an award under Section
11, he may take possession of the land, which
shall thereupon vest absolutely in the
Government, free from all encumbrances.’
30. On a comparison of the aforesaid
provisions, namely, Sections 28(4) and 28(5)
of the KIAD Act with Section 16 of the said
Act, it is clear that the land which is subject to
acquisition proceeding under the said Act gets
vested with the Government only when the
201
Collector makes an award under Section 11,

and the Government takes possession. Under
Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act,
such vesting takes place by operation of law
and it has nothing to do with the making of
any award. This is where Sections 28(4) and
28(5) of the KIAD Act are vitally different
from Sections 4 and 6 of the said Act.
31. A somewhat similar question came up
for consideration before a three-Judge Bench
of this Court in Pratap v. State of
Rajasthan [Pratap v. State of Rajasthan,
(1996) 3 SCC 1] . In that case the acquisition
proceedings commenced under Section 52(2)
of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act,
1959 and the same contentions were raised,
namely, that the acquisition notification gets
invalidated for not making an award within a
period of two years from the date of
notification. Repelling the said contention, the
learned Judges held that once the land is
vested in the Government, the provisions of
Section 11-A are not attracted and the
acquisition proceedings will not lapse. (Pratap
202
case [Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3

SCC 1] , SCC p. 8, para 12.)
32. In Munithimmaiah v. State of
Karnataka [Munithimmaiah v. State of
Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 326] this Court held
that the provisions of Sections 6 and 11-A of
the said Act do not apply to the provisions of
the Bangalore Development Authority Act,
1976 (the BDA Act). In SCC para 15 at p. 335
of the Report this Court made a distinction
between the purposes of the two enactments
and held that all the provisions of the said Act
do not apply to the BDA Act. Subsequently,
the Constitution Bench of this Court
in Offshore Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Bangalore
Development Authority [Offshore Holdings (P)
Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority,
(2011) 3 SCC 139 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 662] ,
held that Section 11-A of the said Act does
not apply to acquisition under the BDA Act.
33. The same principle is attracted to the
present case also. Here also on a comparison
between the provisions of the said Act and the
KIAD Act, we find that those two Acts were
enacted to achieve substantially different
203
purposes. Insofar as the KIADB Act is

concerned, from its Statement of Objects and
Reasons, it is clear that the same was
enacted to achieve the following purposes:
‘It is considered necessary to make
provision for the orderly establishment and
development of industries in suitable areas in
the State. To achieve this object, it is
proposed to specify suitable areas for
industrial development and establish a Board
to develop such areas and make available
lands therein for establishment of industries.’
34. The KIAD Act is of course a self-
contained code. The said Act is primarily a law
regulating acquisition of land for public
purpose and for payment of compensation.
Acquisition of land under the said Act is not
concerned solely with the purpose of planned
development of any city. It has to cater to
different situations which come within the
expanded horizon of public purpose. Recently,
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Girnar
Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra [Girnar
Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3
SCC 1 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 578] held that
204
Section 11-A of the said Act does not apply to

acquisition under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966.
35. The learned counsel for the appellant
has relied on the judgment of this Court
in Mariyappa v. State of
Karnataka [Mariyappa v. State of Karnataka,
(1998) 3 SCC 276] . The said decision was
cited for the purpose of contending that
Section 11-A is applicable to an acquisition
under the KIAD Act.
In Mariyappa [Mariyappa v. State of
Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 276] before coming
to hold that provision of Section 11-A of the
Central Act applies to the Karnataka
Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites
Act, 1972 (hereinafter “the 1972 Act”), this
Court held that the 1972 Act is not a self-
contained code. The Court also held that the
1972 Act and the Central Act are
supplemental to each other to the extent that
unless the Central Act supplements the
Karnataka Act, the latter cannot function. The
Court further held that both the Acts, namely,
205
the 1972 Act and the Central Act deal with

the same subject. But in the instant case, the
KIAD Act is a self-contained code and the
Central Act is not supplemental to it.
Therefore, the ratio
in Mariyappa [Mariyappa v. State of
Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 276] is not
attracted to the facts of the present case.
36. Following the aforesaid well-settled
principles, this Court is of the opinion that
there is no substance in the contention of the
appellant that acquisition under the KIAD Act
lapsed for alleged non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 11-A of the said Act. For
the reasons aforesaid, all the contentions of
the appellant, being without any substance,
fail and the appeal is dismissed.”
30. Having regard to the aforesaid raison

d'être for non-application of the old LA Act, on
the parity of reasoning, provision of Section
24(2) of the new LA Act making Section 11-A
of the old LA Act would, obviously, be not
applicable. We would like to refer to the
judgment in State of M.P. v. M.V.
206
Narasimhan [State of M.P. v. M.V.

Narasimhan, (1975) 2 SCC 377 : 1975 SCC
(Cri) 589] in this behalf where following
proposition is laid down: (SCC p. 385, para
15)
“15. … ‘Where a subsequent Act
incorporates provisions of a previous Act,
then the borrowed provisions become an
integral and independent part of the
subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by
any repeal or amendment in the previous Act.
This principle, however, will not apply in the
following cases:
(a) where the subsequent Act and the
previous Act are supplemental to each other;
(b) where the two Acts are in pari
materia;
(c) where the amendment in the previous
Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act
also, would render the subsequent Act wholly
unworkable and ineffectual; and
(d) where the amendment of the previous
Act, either expressly or by necessary
intendment, applies the said provisions to the
subsequent Act.’”
207
53. A division bench of this court in SRI
ANANTHA SWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS vide judgment dated 02.03.2021 in
W.A.No.1451/2018 by placing reliance on decision of
Supreme Court in ANASUYA BAI supra has also held
that Section 24(2) of 2013 Act does not apply to
proceeding under Section 1966 Act. Thus, the aforesaid
issue is also answered in the negative and it is held that
Section 24(2) does not apply to proceeding under 1966
Act.
54. The Supreme Court in ISHWARI KHAITAN
SUGAR MILLS (P) LTD. AND OTHERS V. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, (1980) 4 SCC 136,
has explained the ratio laid down in R.C. COOPER
(SUPRA) as follows:
18. By the Constitution (Seventh

Amendment) Act, the three entries were
repealed. Entry 33 in List I and Entry 36 in
List II were deleted and a single
208
comprehensive Entry 42 in List III was

substituted to read : “Acquisition and
requisitioning of property”. Accordingly, the
power to acquire property could be exercised
concurrently by the Union and the States.
Even if prior to the deletion of Entry 33 in List
I and Entry 36 in List II an argument could
possibly have been advanced that as power of
acquisition of property was conferred both on
Union and the States to be exercised either
for the purpose of the Union or for the State,
it was incidental to any other legislative
power flowing from various entries in the
three lists and not an independent power, but
since the deletion of Entry 33 in List I and
Entry 36 in List II and substitution of a
comprehensive entry in List III, it could hardly
be urged with confidence that the power of
acquisition and requisitioning of property was
incidental to other power. It is an independent
power provided for in a specific entry.
Therefore, both the Union and the State
would have power of acquisition and
requisitioning of property. This position is
unquestionably established by the majority
209
decision in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union

of India [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970
SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] where
Shah, J., speaking for the majority of 10
Judges held as under: (SCC p. 282, para 38)
“Power to legislate for acquisition of

property is exercisable only under Entry 42 of
List III, and not as an incident of the power to
legislate in respect of a specific head of
legislation in any of the three lists.”
In reaching this conclusion reliance was

placed on Rajahmundry Electric Supply
Corporation Ltd. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954 SCR 779 :
1954 SCJ 310] . It was, however, urged that
the proposition culled out from Rajahmundry
Electric Supply Corporation case [(1970) 1
SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3
SCR 530, 567] by Shah, J., in R.C. Cooper
case [(1970) 1 SCC 248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC
564 : (1970) 3 SCR 530, 567] is not borne
out by the observation in the first mentioned
case. In Rajahmundry Electric Supply
Corporation case [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954
210
SCR 779 : 1954 SCJ 310] the challenge was

to the Madras Electric Supply Undertakings
(Acquisition) Act, 1949, on the ground that
the Madras Legislature was not competent to
enact the legislation because at the relevant
time there was no entry in the Government of
India Act, 1935, relating to compulsory
acquisition of anycommercial or industrial
undertaking. This challenge failed in the High
Court but on appeal the challenge was
accepted by a Constitution Bench of this
Court. Now, it must be remembered that the
impugned legislation in that case was a pre-
Constitution legislation then governed by the
Government of India Act, 1935. The challenge
was that the State Legislature had no power
to enact a legislation for acquisition of an
electrical undertaking. On behalf of the State
the Act was sought to be sustained on the
ground that the Act was in pith and substance
a law with respect to electricity under Entry
31 of the Concurrent List and, therefore, the
State Legislature was competent to enact the
same. After scrutinising the Act this Court
came to the conclusion that in pith and
211
substance the Act was one to provide for

acquisition of electrical undertaking and,
therefore, the State Legislature lacked
competence to enact the same. Now, in that
case the Advocate General of Madras in his
effort to save the impugned legislation
advanced an argument before the
Constitution Bench that:
“There was implicit in every entry in the

legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule to the
Government of India Act, 1935, an inherent
power to make a law with respect to a matter
ancillary or incidental to the subject-matter of
each entry.”
His further argument was that each entry

in the list carried with it an inherent power to
provide for the compulsory acquisition of any
property, land or any commercial or industrial
undertaking, while making a law under such
entry. This argument was in terms repelled
relying upon an earlier decision of the
Constitution Bench in State of
Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar
Singh [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 :
212
1952 SCJ 354] . Repelling this contention of

the Advocate-General of Madras would mean
that the power of acquisition of property is
not ancillary or incidental to the subject-
matter of each entry but in substance it is an
independent power by itself. This also
becomes clear from Maharajadhiraja Sir
Kameshwar Singh case [AIR 1952 SC 252 :
1952 SCR 889 : 1952 SCJ 354] wherein Das,
J., in his concurring judgment repelled the
argument of the learned Attorney General
appearing for the State contending that the
Bihar Land Reforms Act was a law made with
respect to matters mentioned in Entry 18 List
II and not in Entry 36 List II. Entry 18 in List
II read: “Land and Land tenures, etc.” and it
was contended that the impugned legislation
was on the subject of land and land tenures
and would cover acquisition of land also.
Negativing this contention it was held that in
that event Entry 36 in List II would become
redundant. The pertinent observation is as
under:
“In my opinion, to give a meaning and

content to each of the two legislative heads
213
under Entry 18 and Entry 36 in List II the

former should be read as a legislative
category or head comprising land and land
tenures and all matters connected therewith
other than acquisition of land which should be
read as covered by Entry 36 in List II.”
19. It thus clearly transpires that the

observation in Cooper case [(1970) 1 SCC
248, 282 : AIR 1970 SC 564 : (1970) 3 SCR
530, 567] extracted above that power to
legislate for acquisition of property is
exercisable only under Entry 42 of List III and
not as an incident of the power to legislate in
respect of a specific head of legislation in any
of the three lists, is borne out
from Rajahmundry Electric Supply
Corporation case [AIR 1954 SC 251 : 1954
SCR 779 : 1954 SCJ 310]
and Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh
case [AIR 1952 SC 252 : 1952 SCR 889 :
1952 SCJ 354] .
The aforesaid interpretation by the Supreme Court
binds this court, therefore, it cannot be held that

214
decision of Supreme Court in SHRI RAMTANU CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD does not bind this court.
55. The finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge that since, the State Government has adopted the
National Manufacturing Policy, and therefore, the
provisions of 1966 Act would be redundant unless al the
provisions of 2013 Act are introduced to safeguard the
interest of the land owners cannot be sustained.
Similarly, the finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge that since, acquisition of land for industrial and
manufacturing purposes is now declared a primary public
purpose under 2013 Act, the 1966 Act which is silent
with regard to feasibility of acquisition of particular land
for industrial purposes should conform to provisions of
2013 Act, otherwise must perish is sans substance.
Similarly, the finding that State Government cannot be
permitted to over write provisions of 2013 Act by
resorting to unbridled powers under 1966 Act and that

215
entire field of establishment of industrial areas is
covered by 2013 Act, also does not deserve acceptance.
CONCLUSION:
56. In view of preceding analysis, It is held as
follows:
(1) The provisions of 1966 Act are neither
repugnant to 2013 Act nor have been impliedly
repealed on commencement of 2013 Act.
(2) The 1966 Act is a special Act whereas, 2013 Act
is a general law.
(3) The provisions of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Amendment) Act, 2019 are neither arbitrary nor
voilative of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
(4) Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to
proceeding under 1966 Act, in the light of
findings recorded in this order.

216
(5) The Karnataka Amendment Act No.16/2019 to
the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 is constitutionally
valid.
Let the writ petitions be listed before learned single
judge to examine the validity of the proceedings initiated
under the 1966 Act.
The interim order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the
Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.11209-
212/2019, Writ Petition Nos.41641-642/2015, Writ
Petition Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016, Writ Petition
Nos.59461-462/2014, Writ Petition No.35461/2014, Writ
Petition Nos.58807-809/2015, Writ Petition
No.32416/2015, Writ Petition Nos.49228 & 50925-
936/2013, Writ Petition No.30920/2013, Writ Petition
No.18861/2013, Writ Petition Nos.20367-373/2013 &
Writ Petition Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & Writ

217
Petition Nos.20384-388/2013, Writ Petition Nos.40473-
Petition No.859/2016, Writ Petition Nos.44987-
Petition No.17272/2014, Writ Petition Nos.18890 &
23750-752/2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge should not
have dealt with the issue of constitutionality of provision
of law by an interim order. The order dated 19.04.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed.
In the result, writ appeals are allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV/SS

WA 1105 2019 LandAcquistion 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WA 1105 2019 LandAcquistion 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

W.A.No.1105 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4053 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4054 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4055 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4056 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4057 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4058 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4059 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4060 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4061 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4062 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4063 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4064 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4065 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4066 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4067 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.A.No.4068 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)

W.P.No.55704 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.19222 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.22707 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.30905 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.12283 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.27081 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.49536 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB),

W.P.No.52298 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB)

IN W.A. No.1105 OF 2019

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

4. SRI. DODDA CHINNAPPA

3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT

4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER- NIMZ

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R3 & R4

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

3. THE UNDER SECRETARY

1. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-I

1. MR. H.S. SOMASHEKAR

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

4. THE RAJEEV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF

SRI. N.K. RAMESH, ADV., FOR R4

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER

3. SRI. GANGANA BOVI

APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE