SMT. S. JALAJA V. UNION OF INDIA

WA/1105/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a series of writ appeals filed by the KIADB against landowners whose lands were acquired for industrial development under the 1966 Act. The landowners challenged the acquisition and the applicability of the 2013 Act, which provides for fair compensation and rehabilitation in land acquisition, arguing that the 1966 Act is outdated and inconsistent with the 2013 Act. The High Court's decision addressed the legal compatibility between the 1966 Act and the 2013 Act, the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to the 1966 Act, and the constitutional validity of the 2013 Act in the context of land acquisition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722235 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: M.A. Tulloch & Co. vs. State of Orissa, Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India, M. Nagabhushana vs. State of Karnataka, Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, Mysore vs. Anasuya Bai, K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai, Padmamma vs. Ramakrishna Reddy, Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Textile Corporation, Forum for People's Collective Efforts vs. State of West Bengal
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: PRABHULING NAVADAGI; B B PATIL; SHIVA KUMAR; SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH
• Assessee Lawyers: P N RAJESWARA
• Keywords: Industrial Development; Land Acquisition; Legal Repugnancy; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
• Section: 119; 64; 54; 56; 48; 32; 11; 68; 43; 69; 90; 113; 13; 73; 37; 6; 63; 92; 72; 101; 5; 7; 112; 79; 28(4); 123; 114; 14; 125; 28(8); 110; 111; 108; 3; 18; 28(1); 49; 42; 128; 102; 19; 50; 104; 115; 46; 124; 4; 117; 85; 75; 28(5); 41; 96; 34; 44; 127; 47; 30; 84; 57; 45; 89; 91; 29; 24(2); 71; 86; 80; 74; 53; 55; 38; 36; 129; 65; 52; 62; 120; 126; 61; 87; 87; 58; 59; 88; 51; 77; 78; 31; 116; 93; 121; 28(6); 39; 105; 107; 35; 82; 33; 122; 118; 100; 130; 67; 60; 76; 40; 66; 83; 70; 106; 103; 109; 81; 98; 99; 95; 97; 94; 28(7)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 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 W.A.No.2392 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.41641-642 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4053 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.2907/2015 & 46915/2016 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4054 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.59461-462 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4055 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.35461 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4056 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.58807-809 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4057 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.32416 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), R 2 W.A.No.4058 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4059 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.30920 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4060 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.18861 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4061 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.20367-373/2013 & W.P.Nos.20375-380 & 20382/2013 & W.P.Nos.20384-388/2013 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4062 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.40473-474 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4063 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4064 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.859 OF 2016 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4065 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.48824-840/2015 & 7094-7109/2017 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4066 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015 (LA-KIADB), W.A.No.4067 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.No.17272 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB), 3 W.A.No.4068 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) IN W.P.Nos.18890 & 23750-752 OF 2013 (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 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. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA 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 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE DIVISION NO.3, 1ST CROSS, KENI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560009. 2. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD ZONAL OFFICE BANGALORE DIVISION NO.3, 1ST CROSS, KENI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560009. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND 1. SRI. R. NARAYANA SON OF LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT MEDIHALLI VILLAGE BIDARA HALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE M. S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 8 4. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560 001. 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN 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 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI.PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 59461-462/2014 DATED 19/04/2017. IN W.A.No.4055 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.35461 OF 2014 BETWEEN 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB NO.14/3 ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-01. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 10 AND 1. R. VENKATESH S/O LATE V. RAMAIAH AGED 62 YEARS R/AT KUMBARA PET MALUR TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN 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 (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 58807-58809/2015 DATED 19/04/2017. IN W.A.No.4057 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.32416 OF 2015 BETWEEN THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 32416/2015 DATED 19/4/17. IN W.A.No.4058 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.49228 & 50925-936 OF 2013 BETWEEN 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND 1. SMT. K. PREMALATHA W/O C. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 14 2. SRI. SRINIVASAPPA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3. SRI. GANGANA BOVI S/O GANGANA BOVI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 4. SRI. K M DODDAPPAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 5. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O DODDASIDDANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 6. SRI. MUNIRAMAIAH S/O MUNIVENKATANNA BOVI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 7. SRI. BODAPPA S/O GANGANA BOVI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 8. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT MINDAHALLI VILLAGE BANANAHALLIL POST MALLUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001. 15 10. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN 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 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 1ST FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 1(b) SMT. SOUMYA W/O PRAKASH D/O MANJUNATH N AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 1(c) SRI. SAGUN M S/O MANJUNATH N AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. HUSKUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) ---- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 30920/2017 DATED 19/04/2017. 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 (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND 1. SHRI. M.R. ASHWATHAPPA S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS MINDAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALURU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT -563101. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 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) ---- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 18861/2013 DATED 19/4/17. 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 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-506 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND 1. SRI. J. SIDDAPPA S/O APPAYYANNA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS. 2. SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA S/O J. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 3. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O MOTAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 4. SRI. GANGANNA BHOVI S/O NARAYANA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS. 19 5. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS. 6. SRI. APPANNA S/O MUNIVENAKTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 7. SRI. K.M. DODDAPPAIAH S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. 8. SRI. MALLEGOWDA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. 9. SMT. M. JAYALAKSHMI D/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 10. SMT. M. PADMA D/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 11. SMT. M. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 12. SRI. MUNIRAJU .M S/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 13. SRI. M. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O MALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 14. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 20 15. SRI. M. SIDDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 16. SRI. M. MANJUNATH S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 17. SRI. N. GOPALAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 18. SRI. CHANDRACHARI S/O RAMACHANDRACHARI AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 19. SRI. S. KRISHNA SINGH S/O SEETHARAM SINGH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. APPELLANTS ARE ALL R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 20. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 21. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN 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 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA 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 (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 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 HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 40473-40474/2015 DATED 19/04/2017. IN W.A.No.4063 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.51805-807 OF 2015 BETWEEN 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, V FLOOR, KHANIJ BHAVAN EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, III & IV FLOORS KHANIJ BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EXECUTIVE MEMBER NOW REP. BY SPL. DC. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 3. P.M. DIWAKAR SANKOL S/O MAHESWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE R/AT PILLE KARANAHALLI VILLAGE M D HALLI POST , KASABA HOBLI CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 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) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 51805-51807/2015 DATED 19/04/2017. IN W.A.No.4064 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.859 OF 2016 BETWEEN SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD MARUTHI GROUP BUILDING II FLOOR, NEAR SIT COLLEGE B H ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 103. 24 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND S. NARAYANAPPA AGE 53 YEARS S/O SEETHARAMAIAH RESIDING AT SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S. NARAYANAPPA, SERVED) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA 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 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NIMZ, MARUTHI TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR-572 101. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 NOW BY ITS SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER S.N. BALACHANDRA. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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) TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 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 TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 6. SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O H. ERANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O SY.NO.11/10, NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 26 7. SRI. GANGADHARAIAH S/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. NELAHALA (POST), BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 8. SRI. KENCHAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 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 TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 11. SRI. GAVIYAPPA S/O LATE KOTE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 12. SMT. LAKKAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NELAHALA (POST) BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 13. SRI. A G BASAVARAJAIAH S/O LATE GURUPADAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 27 R/O CHIKKASEEBI, BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 14. SMT. DODDATHAYAMMA W/O DODDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O NELAHAL(POST), BELLAVI HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 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 TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 128. 17. SRI. THIMMAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O KEMPADALI VILLAGE HAL DODDERI POST, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572 101. 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. 20. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 28 21. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 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) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 48824-48840/2015 DATED 19/04/2017. IN W.A.No.4066 OF 2017 IN W.P.Nos.44987-988 OF 2015 BETWEEN 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD OFFICER - 2, KHANIJA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.49, III & IV FLOORS KHANIJ BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD 29 BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL DC. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560001. …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 APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 44987-988/2015 DATED 19/4/17. IN W.A.No.4067 OF 2017 IN W.P.No.17272 OF 2014 BETWEEN 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA 30 DEVELOPMENT BOARD, (KIADB) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 APPELLANT NO.3 IS REP. BY APPELLANT NO.1. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) 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. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES 31 VIAKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 17272/2014 DATED 19/04/2017. 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. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-01. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, AG A/W SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADV.,) AND 1. SRI. NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE DODDA SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE 32 KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.106, 1ST FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3 V/O DTD:6.1.2020 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 IS ACCEPTED AS GOOD SERVICE) ----- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN 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 MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 33 3. HENRY FERNANDIZ S/O BENJAMIN FERNANDIZ AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOYKODI MANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 4. SMT. AGNES D. SOUZA D/O PAUL FERNANDIZ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT LAVI NILAYA PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 5. FELIX NAZERATH S/O AMBOZE NAZERATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOY KODIMANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 6. OLWIN ARUN MENEZES S/O ROSARIO MENEZES AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT SHENOY KODI PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 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 MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 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 MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALOE 560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIAIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 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. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSINOER'S OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001. 6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 35 BYKAMPADY, MANGALROE 575011. 7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RERPESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECKUTIVE OFFICER & EM, III & IV FLOOR, KHAIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING), NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 8. THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER URVA STORES, KOTTARA MANGALURU-575006. 9. KARNTAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PARISARABHAVAN, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001. 10. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (MoEF, GOI) PARYAWARABHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003. 11. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 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 SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 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 MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 4. VILFRED PAVLA D SOUZA 37 S/O MARKEVEREST D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT DEVASTANA KODI MANE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 5. PETER CYPRIAN D SOUZA S/O SALVADORE D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT ROSARIO MOUNT HOUSE PERMUDE POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 6. VITTAL MOULYA S/O SANKU MOULYA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT DEVAS HOUSE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 7. KRISHNA SHETTY S/O PUVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 8. GOPI SHETTY S/O PUVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 9. SANDEEPA S/O SADANANDA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST 38 MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 10. BHASKAR SHETTY S/O GANAPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 11. LEELA M. SHETTY W/O MAHABALA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 12. RATNAKAR SHETTY S/O RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 13. PANDURANGA SHETTY S/O KUTTY SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT PUNKIDIDE MANE KUTHETHOOR POST BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 14. RAMACHANDRA PEJATHAYA S/O LAKSHMI NARAYAN PEJATHAYA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT DURGA PRASAD NILAYA THANNIKERE HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 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 MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 18. GEETHA W/O JAYASHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PANJEKALLU MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 19. DEEPAKSHETTY D/O JAYASHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT PANJEKALLU MANE KUTHETHOOR BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 20. PRAMOD ALVA S/O BHOJA ALVA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KARAMARA MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 21. FATHER PETER CYPRIAN D SOUZA S/O LUCY D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 40 R/AT KUTHETHOOR BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 22. RAMANANDA K. SHETTY S/O KOOSA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KALLOLLI BALIKE MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 23. SAROJINI SHETTY D/O NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT KALLOLLI BALIKE MANE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 24. YOGESH SHETTY S/O ANTHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NOVI MANE KALYANI NIVASA KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 25. RAVINDRA SHETTY S/O KOCHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NOVI MANE, KUTHETHOOR BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 26. SANTHOSH SHETTY S/O SHEKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU PSOT MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 27. SHAILA SHETTY D/O SHEKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 41 R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 28. RAJEEVI SHETTY D/O CHARAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT KALLOLI BALIKE KUTHETHOOR, BAJAVAU PSOT MANGALURU DISTRICT-575030. 29. JAYA POOJARI S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 30. NEELAYA POOJARI S/O LATE RAMAPPA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 31. SEETHARAMA SHASTRY S/O LATE NARAYANA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 32. WILMA D SOUZA D/O ELIAS D SOUZA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 33. SATHEESHA PEJATHAYA S/O VANAJAKSHAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 34. GANESH POOJARI S/O LATE SEENA POOJARI 42 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILALGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. 35. OLWIN RODRIGUES S/O LATE THOMOS MARCEL RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT PERMUDE VILLAGE AND POST MANGALURU DISTRICT-574509. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE IST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANASOUDAH BANGALORE-560001. 4. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE 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. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 43 DAKSHINA KANANDA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU-575001. 6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD BYKAMPADY, MANGALURU-575011. 7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EM III & IV FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN (SOUTH WING), NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001. 8. THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER URVA STORES, KOTTARA., MANGALURU-575006. 9. KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARISARABHAVAN CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001. 10. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ENVIRONOMENT & FORESTS (MOEF, GOL) PARYAWARA BAHVAN CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 11. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARYAVARANA BHAVAN CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD 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. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV., FOR R9 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) ----- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 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 D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA. 4. SMT HEMAVATHI 45 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA. 5. SMT. GULABI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI LINGAMMA SHETTIGARA. 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 D/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI. 11. SMT. VASANTHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE SHRI KALYANI POOJARTHI. PETITIONERS NO.7 TO 11 ARE 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 D K DISTRICT - 574509. 14. SHRI. K H VARADARAJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA. 15. DR. NARAHARI DAS AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA. 16. SHRI. GOVINDA DAS AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA. 17. SHRI. JAGANNATHA DAS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HAYAGREEVA ACHARYA. PETITIONERS NO.14 TO 17 ARE 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. PETITIONERS NO.18 TO 19 ARE RESIDING AT MATHRU KRIPA HOUSE AMBADE GURI, BAJAVU POST KUTHETHOOR, MANGALORE TALUK D K DISTRICT - 575030. ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 3. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE 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 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, HAMILTON CIRCLE, MANGALURU - 575001. 5. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHEIF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 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. SATYANARAYANA SINGH, ADV., FOR R7 SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR HOLLA AND HOLLA, ADV., FOR R9 SRI. C.M. POONACHA, ADV., FOR R3) ----- THIS WP 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 & 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 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 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 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. VISHWANATH H.M. ADV.,) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE 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. 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, KHENY BUILDING GANDHINAGAR 50 BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY. 4. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD 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) ------ THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE 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 D/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE PERMUDE 51 MANGALURU-574509 3. NIRMALA D/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509 4. KESHAVA S/O. LATE SEENA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT PONGARNAR MANE 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 PETITIONERS NO.5 TO 8 ARE 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 RESIDING AT BALPA GURI HOUSE PERMUDE MANGALURU-574509 26. GEETHA J. SALIAN D/O. LATE RAGHU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT BALPA GURI HOUSE 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 RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030 31. RATHNAKALA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030 32. AMRUTHA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU 56 DAKSHINA KANNADA-575030 33. KISHORE S/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575030 34. SHASHIKALA D/O. POOVAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT PANJIKALLU HOUSE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHUR VILLAGE MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575030 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA OSUDHA BENGALURU-560001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE IST FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 4. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE 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 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE MANGALURU-575001 6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BYKAMPADY MANGALURU-575011 7. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & EM III & IV FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN(SOUTH WING) NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 8. THE MANGALURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER URVA STORES, KOTTARA MANGALURU-575006 9. KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY PARISARA BHAVAN CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001 10. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY O ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS (MOEF, GOI) PARYAWARAN BHAWAN CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 58 11. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS SECRETARY 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. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 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 COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, 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 PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KODAPPA BALIKE BAJAVU POST KUTHETHOOR MANGALURU TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-575030. ...PETITIONERS 60 (BY SRI. CLIFTON D. ROZARIO, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 3. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE 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 COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE HAMILTON CIRCLE MANGALURU-575001. 5. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 4TH & 5TH FLOOR EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 6. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 9. MANGALURU REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD KUTHETHOOR POST VIA KATIPALLA MANGALURU-575030 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …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 COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, 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, (SITE NO. 305, SURVEY NO. 49) 3. SRI. SHEKARAPPA S/O. KESHAVAIAH, II MAIN ROAD, I STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSURU 16, (SITE NO. 308, SURVEY NO. 49) 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 (SITE NO.333, SURVEY NO.49) 8. SRI.R.SRIKANTA S/O. R.RUDRAPPA RESIDING AT NO.49, 2ND MAIN, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-20 (SITE NO.338, SURVEY NO.49) 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 (SITE NO.347, SURVEY NO.49) 12. SRI. N. SRIKANTA MURTHY S/O. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.198/B, 5TH CROSS NIMISHAMBHA LAYOUT KUVEMPUNAGARA MYSURU (SITE NO.351, SURVEY NO.49) 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 (SITE NO.368, SURVEY NO.88/1) 17. K. GOVINDARAJU S/O. KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT PALLAHALLI SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK MANDYA DIST (SITE NO.374, SURVEY NO.88/1) 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 (SITE NO.375, SURVEY NO.88/1) 19. M B KRISHNE GOWDA S/O BORE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.628, 3RD CROSS HEBBAL 2ND STAGE MYSURU-17 (SITE NO.378, SURVEY NO.88/1) 20. MOGANNA S/O GURU SHANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.309, LOKAYANAK NAGARA, NEAR GANAPATHI DEVASTANA, HEBBAL, MYSURU (SITE NO.381, SURVEY NO.88/1) 21. LOKESHACHAR S/O KEMPACHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE, K SHETTY HALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.383, SURVEY NO.88/1) 22. THIPPEGOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.104, 3RD A MAIN, III STAGE, SOUTH OF KUMBARA KOPPALU, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.389, SURVEY NO.88/1) 24. SRI. BHADREGOWDA W/O SHIVANAGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.27/27, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, NEAR POST OFFICE GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU SOUTH (SITE NO.390, SURVEY NO.88/1) 25. SMT SAROJAMMA W/O LATE SRI MANJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.284, 6TH CROSS, 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, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.222, 6TH CROSS, MAHADESHWARA EXTENSION, KUMBARAKOPPAL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.353, SY NO.49) 30. SRI S BASAVARAJ S/O LATE SIDDAYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, 5TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR RAILWAY EXTENSION, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.372, SY NO.88/1) 36. SRI H N PARAMESH S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 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 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.2866, LASHKAR MOHALLA, HALLADA KERI, MYSURU-02 (SITE NO.394, SY NO.88/1) 39. SRI B M NAGAMALLESH S/O LATE MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.504/1, 4TH CROSS, VENE SHESHANNA ROAD, MYSURU-04, (SITE NO.350, SY NO.49) 40. SRI M MAHADEVA SHETTY S/O LATE MADHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.EWS, 3RD MAIN, HEBBAL IST STAGE, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.314, SY NO.49) 41. SRI V KHODANDA RAMA S/O LATE VENKATRAME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KENNALU VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.293, SY NO.49) 42. SRI P T KURIYAN S/O LATE THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.132/B, CHIKKA VERRANNA ROAD, BANNIMANTAP, MYSURU-10 (SITE NO.325, SY NO.49) 70 44. SRI M A CHUNCHE GOWDA S/O LATE AMAVASE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.342, MILK CENTER ROAD, VISHWESHWARANAGAR I STAGE, MYSURU-08 (SITE NO.302, SY NO.49) 46. SRI K V VENKATESH S/O LATE ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANDIKERI BEEDHI, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT, (SITE NO.345, SY NO.49) 47. SRI H SHIVANANJAIAH S/O LATE HONNAYA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NO.292, 2ND STAGE, K H B ROAD, EWS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, MYSURU-09 (SITE NO.300, SY NO.49) 48. SRI ABANIPAL S/O LATE JOGENDRA PAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.2309, SEC VIKRANTH TYRES, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.315, SY NO.49) 49. SRI M M AHMAD S/O LATE MOHAMMAD PAUAJULLA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, EMPLOYEE NO.2364, 71 VIKRANTH TYRES, MYSURU-16, (SITE NO.355, SY NO.49) 50. SRI B MARI S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1292, RAMPURA ROAD, SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT, (SITE NO.341, SY NO.49) 51. SMT B SAVITHRI W/O D KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 72 RESIDING AT NO.11/2, P BLOCK, NEW EXTENSION, KUMBARAKOPPAL OPP GOVT SCHOOL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.301,SY NO.49) 55. SRI D PADMANABHA RAO S/O LATE R H DEVOJIRAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2365, 12TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-17 (SITE NO.307,SY NO.49) 56. SRI H RAMESH SHET S/O LATE H SRINIVAS SHET, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.82/1, MAARIGUDI BHEEDHI, KUMBARAKOPPAL, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.320, SY NO.49) 58. SRI H K JAGADISH S/O LATE KALACHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.477, IST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, LOKANAYAKANAGARA, MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.328, SY NO.49) 73 59. SRI R SRINIVASA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 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 (SITE NO.373, SY.NO.88/1) 63. SRI P RAJU S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NEW HOUSE ROAD Q BLCOK 2 KUMBARAKOPPALU MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.376, SY.NO.88/1) 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 (SITE NO.379, SY.NO.88/1) 65 . SRI MOHAMMED JOHN S/O LATE ABDUL RAVOOF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS EMPLOYEE NO.2398 VIKRANT TYRES LTD. MYSURU-16 (SITE NO.382, SY.NO.88/1) 66. SRI R PRIYAVRATHA S/O LATE RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.47 MANJUNATHNAGAR YADAVAGIRI MYSURU-02 (SITE NO.385, SY.NO.88/1) 67. SRI. M.B. GOPAL S/O SRI. BASAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSA ANANDUR BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTR (SITE NO.295, SY NO.49) 68. SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK (SITE NO.322, SY NO.49) 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 RESIDING AT NO.2024/36, 8TH CROSS, ASHOKPURAM, MYSURU 570008 (SITE NO.292, SY.NO.49) 72. SMT. GEETHA SAROWAR W/O ANAND SAROWAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.410, 43TH CROSS, 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, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT OSA ANANDOOR VILALGE, PUMP HOSAHALLY POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TQ. MANDYA DISTRICT. 77 81. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE M S BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 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 (SITE NO.336 SY NO.49) 83. SRI B MAHESHA S/O LATE M BORALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.2630/1 HOSA BANDIKERI 6TH CROSS, CHAMUNDIPURAM MYSURU-570004 (SITE NO 337 SY NO.49) 84. SRI S NATARAJA S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 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 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 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 AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT HULIKERE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT (SITE NO.346 SY NO.49) 87. SRI M RAMAIAH S/O LATE LAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 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, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.138, 9TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570016 91. J GURULINGAIAH C/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO.428, 7TH A CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU 79 92. GEETHA W/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.138, 9TH CROSS, 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, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, C/O ANANDA RESIDING AT NO.428, 7TH A CROSS, HEBBAL 1ST STAGE, MYSURU 95. MANJULA W/O ALTE H.E.NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 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 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA 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 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 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 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANJANTHI SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADV.,) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA 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. 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD ESTALISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT ACT 1966 4TH AND 5TH EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 4. STATE HIGH LEVEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE 82 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, 2ND FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGLAURU-560 01 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD 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 (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2 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 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? 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 Resettlement Act, 2013? (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 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013? (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.— (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) On publication of a notification under sub-section (1), the State Government shall serve notice upon the owner or where 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 11. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon.—(1) Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a notification (hereinafter referred to as preliminary notification) to that effect along with details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the following manner, namely:— (a) in the Official Gazette; (b) in two daily newspapers circulating 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, 152 satisfied that any land should be acquired for the purpose specified in the notification issued 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 authorised 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 authorised 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. (8) Where the land has been acquired for the Board, the State Government, after it has in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Immediately after issuance of the notification under sub-section (1), the concerned Gram Sabha or Sabhas at the village level, municipalities in case of municipal areas and the Autonomous Councils in case of the areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, shall be informed of the contents of the notification issued under the said sub-section in all cases of land acquisition at a meeting called especially for this purpose. (3) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall also contain a statement on the nature of the public purpose involved, reasons necessitating the displacement of affected persons, summary of the Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of the Administrator appointed for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 43. (4) No person shall make any transaction or cause any transaction of land specified in the preliminary notification or create any encumbrances on such land from the date of publication of such notification till such time as the proceedings 153 taken possession of the land, may transfer the land to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. under this Chapter are completed: 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 under sub-section (1), the 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) 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 12. Preliminary survey of land and power of officers to carry out survey.—For the purposes of enabling the appropriate Government to determine the extent of land to be acquired, it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,— (a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such 154 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. (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. locality; (b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil; (c) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; (d) to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; and (e) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches and where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken and the 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 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. 13. Payment for damage.—The officer so authorised under Section 12 shall at the time of entry under Section 12 pay or tender payment for any damage caused, and, in case of dispute as to the sufficiency of the amount so paid or tendered, he shall at once refer the dispute to the decision of the Collector or other chief revenue officer of the district, and such decision shall be final. 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 14. Lapse of Social Impact Assessment Report.—Where a preliminary notification under Section 11 is not issued within twelve months from the date of 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 referred to in sub-section (2) 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: Provided further that the 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 Rehabilitation and Resettlement 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 Rehabilitation and Resettlement 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 Rehabilitation and Resettlement 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 referred to in sub-section (1) 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 referred to in sub-section (1) 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: Provided further 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 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: Provided further that the 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): Provided also that the 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: Provided also that the 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 Collector's taking possession 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 Collector's taking possession 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 Resettlement Act, 2013? 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 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 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 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 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, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka 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. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 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. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 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, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Karnataka 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- 474/2015, Writ Petition Nos.51805-807/2015, Writ Petition No.859/2016, Writ Petition Nos.44987- 988/2015, Writ Petition Nos.44987-988/2015, Writ 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 "