(Prayer: This W.A. is filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No. 4537/2009 (LA-KIADB) dated 01.07.2009.)Alok Aradhe J,1. In this intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which challenges were made to the Notification dated 25.11.2005 as well as the subsequent allotment of the sites made in favour of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 has been repelled by learned Single Judge and the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. In order to appreciate the appellant€™s challenge to the impugned order, relevant facts need mention which are stated hereinafter.2. The appellant purchased 2 acres and 23 guntas of land of Survey No. 225 situate at Banandur Village, BidadiHobli, Ramanagara Taluk, by registered sale deed dated 16.10.1995. The land of the appellant measuring 2 acres 23 guntas as well as 1,884 acres of land was required for formation of industrial layout. Thereupon a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as €˜the Act€™ for short) was issued on 15.04.1997, by which the land of appellant as well as the land measuring 1,884 acres was sought to be acquired for formation of industrial layout. Thereafter, the aforesaid Notification was published in daily €œPrajavani€ dated 30.04.1997, by which objections were invited in respect of acquisition of land in question. The appellant did not prefer any objection in response to the aforesaid Notification. On 19.05.1997, notice of personal hearing was sent to the appellant under certificate of posting and thereafter, another notice was sent on 09.06.1997 under certificate of posting to the appellant. All the aforesaid notices were in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas and were not received back by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as €˜the Board€™ for shot).3. A declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued on 03.04.1998, by which only 21 guntas was sought to be acquired. Thereafter, on 04.04.1998 the Board acquired 21 guntas of land and on 15.05.1998 the appellant handed over the possession of 21 guntas of land. The appellant thereafter, submitted a representation on 23.12.1999, in which inter alia it was stated that though in the Notification issued under Section 28(1) of the Act on 31.01.1998, land measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas was mentioned but declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act has been issued only in respect of land measuring 21 guntas. It was further stated that either suitable orders be passed to release the land or action should be taken to make immediate arrangement for payment of compensation. The State Government thereafter, issued a declaration on 25.11.2005 in respect of the land measuring 219 acres and 11 guntas, which included the land of the appellant measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas. The lands of the appellant were allotted to respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 3 respectively on 19.03.2008 and 28.03.2008 for setting up of an industry. The appellant thereafter, filed a writ petition on or about 18.02.2009, in which a writ of certiorari was sought seeking quashment of declaration issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. The appellant also sought a writ of mandamus directing the Board to revoke the orders of allotment of sites in favour of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and to de-notify land measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.07.2009. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after a long period of 8 years, declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued and remaining 2 acres and 2 guntas of the land was acquired in pursuance of earlier Notification dated 15.04.1997 issued under Section 28(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that issuance of Notification beyond a period of 2 years is not permissible in law. It is pointed out that award has been passed during the pendency of the appeal on 31.07.2015 and compensation has been deposited on 17.07.2017 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara and the market value of the land has been fixed at Rs.82,920/- per acre contrary to the decision of the board itself. It is also submitted that notice under Section 28(6) of the Act was not personally served on the appellant but the same was pasted on the land in question. It is pointed out that in the communication dated 23.12.1999, the request to release the land has been misread as consent of acquisition for entire land by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that the appellant could not have granted consent for acquisition of entire land in the year 1999 as the Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued subsequently on 25.11.2005. It is submitted that entire subsequent proceeding initiated for acquisition of land measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in H.N. Shivanna and Others V. State of Karnataka and Another Passed in W.A. No. 3189-3201 of 2010 dated 28.11.2012, the Karnataka Industrial area development board and others v. the state of Karnataka and others in W.A. No. 100219/2018 dated 05.12.2018 and in H.G. Kularni and others V. the Assistant commissioner, Belgaum sub division, belgaum and others in W.P. No. 590 of 1973 dated 16.01.1976.5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 cannot be read into the provisions of the Act. It is pointed out that, from the representation dated 23.12.1999, it is evident that the appellant himself has sought compensation in respect of entire land and therefore, it is not open for him to challenge the land acquisition proceeding. It is also submitted that after the allotments have been made in favour of respondent No. 3 & 4 on 28.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 respectively, the writ petition has been filed on or about 18.12.2009, which suffers from delay and laches. It is submitted that Notification dated 25.11.2005 was issued in respect of 219 acres and 11 guntas of land including the land of the appellant measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas for formation of industrial layout. It is also pointed out that acquisition of the area for formation of industrial layout takes time and is taken up at different stages depending upon the developmental activities and its completion. It is also urged that successive notifications at different stages will not cause any prejudice to the landowners like the appellant as they continue to be in possession of the land in question. It is further submitted that there is no bar in law in issuing the successive notification and no time limit can be prescribed. It is further submitted that if the appellant is aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation, he is free to avail of such remedy as may be available to him in law. It is further submitted that the decision rendered in Shivanna€™s case (supra) does not lay down good law, in view of decisions of Supreme Court in €˜Sawaranlata and others v. State of Haryana and others€™, (2010) 4 SCC 532 and €˜M. Naghabhushana V. State of Karnataka€™, (2011) 3 SCC 408. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decisions in €˜Offshore holdings private limited v. BDA & others€™, (2011) 3 SCC 139, €˜Special lao, KIADB Mysore and anther v. Anusuya Bai by Lrs. and others€™, (2017) 3 SCC 313, €˜BDA and anther v. state of Karnataka and others€™, (2018) 9 SCC 122, €˜P. Narayanappa& another v. state of Karnataka & Others€™, (2006) 7 SCC 578, €˜V.T. Krishnamurty v. State of Karnataka and others€™, ILR 1991 KAR 1183 (DB), €˜Muninanjappa& Others V. State and Others€™, order dated 20-11-2012 in W.A. 3135-37/2010 and sakamma v. state of Karnataka, order dated 12/15-06-1998 in W.P. No. 32881-882/1996.6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 while adopting the submissions made on behalf of learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2, submitted that respondents No. 3 & 4 have already been allotted the land on 28.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 respectively and possession has been handed over to them, pursuant to which they have made considerable investment and have raised the superstructure and have commenced their industries. It is also pointed out that the writ petitioner has been filed after the possession of the land was handed over to respondents No. 3 & 4 and the same therefore suffers from delay and laches and no interference is called for at this stage, especially after respondents 3 & 4 have made huge investments and have commenced their industries.7. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. It is not in dispute before us that it is permissible to issue successive declarations under Section 28(4) of the Act. In €˜Ram chand and others v. Union of India and others€™, (1994) 1 SCC 44, the Supreme Court was dealing the situations prevalent prior to amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Land Acquisition Act Amendment in 1984. In the foresaid case, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and declarations under Section 6(1) of the Act were issued on 23.01.1959, 24.10.1961 and 16.05.1966 and 13.01.1969 respectively. However, the awards were not passed. The Supreme Court held that in view of the decision in €˜Aflatoon v Lt. Governor of Delhi€™, (1975) 4 SCC 285, there was no justification for not passing the award and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, it was held that two years period would be a reasonable time for making an award, as for when the reasonable time for making an award, as for when the statute does not prescribe a time limit for performing an Act, the same has to be performed within reasonable time. However, a division bench of this court in H.N. Shivanna€™s case supra, held that issuance of successive declarations are permissible and by placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Ram Chand and others supra, held that 2 years time would be a reasonable time for issuance of declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act. However it is pertinent to note that the division bench in Shivanna€™s case also held that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be read in the Act and though no time limit is prescribed under the Act, the acquisition is to be completed within a reasonable time, say within 2 years, and still what is the reasonable time has to be decided in the facts of particular case. Thus, H.N. Shivanna€™s case is not an authority for the proposition that declaration under Section 28(4) cannot be issued beyond a period of 2 years. The Supreme Court in M. Nagabhushana€™s case supra negative the contention that since, the award was not passed within a period of 2 years from the date of declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, the acquisition would not stand vitiated in view of the fact that Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, it is well settled legal proposition that where a statue does not provide for time limit for doing an Act, such an Act has to be done within a reasonable time, and what would be reasonable time has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the Act. [See: €˜MeherRusidalal v union of India€™, (2004) 7 SCC 362, €˜P.K. Sreekantan v P. Sreekumaran Nair€™, (2006) 13 SCC 574 and €˜K.BNagur v Union of India€™, (2012) 4 SCC 483]. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we have to ascertain whether the Notification under Section 28(4) of the Act has been issued within reasonable time and to deal with the issue with regard to delay and laches in filing the writ petition, in the light of submission made by learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2.8. The Act has been enacted to make special provision 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 of establish an Industrial Areas Development Board and for purpose connected with the matters aforesaid. The division benches of this court in case of €˜B.K. Nanjundaiah and others v. the B.D.A., Bangalore and another€™, AIR 1988 Karnataka 227 and in €˜SMT. Sakamma v. State of Karnataka€™ W.P. No. 32881/1996 dated 12/15th June 1998, have held that successive declarations can be issued under Section 28(4) of the Act. It has further been held that the board has to function for promotion and assistance in the rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries in the industrial areas. It has also been held that the development of a planned industrial area and establishment, maintenance and development and management of industrial estate is a long drawn and continuous process. No time limit can be prescribed. It is also material to see that where large extent of land are proposed for acquisition under the Notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act, it may not be possible for the authorities to complete the acquisition at a single stroke in view of Sub-section (2) sub-Section (3) of the Act, which mandates the notice to the owner or the occupier and to all such persons known or believed to be interested therein and to provide them an opportunity of being heard in respect of their objections and to make orders in respect of such objections. It may not be out of place to mentions that there may be some attempts to evade service of notice to protract the proceedings. In those circumstances, if the authorities postponed to make the declaration the development of the industry would suffer. It may also be pertinent to note that to hear large number of land owners with variety of objections, the State Government may require longer period of time and it may take further time to pass orders in individual cases. Therefore, it would become necessary for the State Government to make different orders followed by different declarations.9. Now we may advert to the facts of the case. A preliminary notifications was issued on 15.04.1997 in respect of acquisition of land measuring 1,884 acres of land for acquisition of the board, which included the land held by the appellant measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas. The declaration was issued on 04.04.1998 in respect of 21 guntas of the land of appellant including the other properties. The appellant submitted a representation on 23.12.1999, which reads as under:€œSub: Payment of Compensation/preliminary notification 28(1) reg. land S.No. 225, Banadur Village, BidadiHobli, Ramanagaram Taluk.Extent: 225-2A23G.No. LAQ 938-97/98 dated 31.01.1998.Above land is been preliminary notified under Section 28(1) on 31.01.1998.However so far final notification is not been issued neither any development work is been issued by KIADB. We are not able to use our land for other purposes, where has could come revenue on those funds are notified above 28(1), as have been put to heavy loss due to delay in setting this matter. So we request you to pass orders to release above land to us at the earliest of else make immediate arrangement to pay compensation€.Thus from the perusal of aforesaid Notification, it is evident that appellant himself on 23.12.1999 had sought either release of land or payment of compensation. In other words, he had no objection to acquisition of land measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas.10. It is also pertinent to note that appellant did not file any objection to the Notification published under Section 28(1) of the Act dated 30.04.1997. Thereafter, notices dated 19.05.1997 and 09.06.1997 were also sent to the appellant, which failed to evoke any response from him. Thereafter, declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act, was issued by which only 21 guntas of land was notified for acquisition. The formation of industrial layout is a comprehensive scheme and acquisition of area covered by such scheme can take place at different stages from time to time depending on the developmental activities and its completion. In the instant case, at the first instance, 1,100 acres of land was acquired. It can safely by inferred that development and allotment of 1,100 acres of land would take considerable time. Thereafter, in second phase land measuring 219 acres and 11 guntas was acquired. Admittedly, it is open for the State Government to issue successive declarations under Section 28(4) of the Act. By a subsequent declaration dated 25.11.2005, declaration was issued in respect of total land admeasuring 219 acres and 11 guntas, which included the property of the appellant. The development of the industrial area was been taken up in phased manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any delay in issuance of second declaration dated 25.11.2005 in the facts of the case and the same has been issued within reasonable time.11. Now we may deal with the issue of delay and laches in filing the writ petition. The appellant was fully aware of the acquisition proceedings. It is pertinent to note that the land of the appellant of survey Nos. 190 & 193 was also acquired and in respect of land beari
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ng survey No. 193 declaration was issued on 11.03.2002. However, the appellant has not challenged the acquisition of the aforesaid lands. The appellant has also not responded to personal notices sent to him on 19.05.1997 and 09.06.1997. The declaration was issued on 25.11.2005 and thereafter, the plots were allotted to respondent No. 3 & 4 respectively on 28.03.2008 and 19.03.2008. The respondent No. 3 & 4 have already constructed industrial sheds by investing huge money on the land allotted to them and have set up their industries, which is evident from the photographs annexed with the objections statements of respondents No. 3 & 4. However, after a period of approximately more than there and a half years, the appellant approached this court by filing the writ petition. The writ petition preferred by the appellant therefore, suffers from unexplained delay and laches on this ground also the appellant is not entitled for any relief.12. For yet another reason, the writ petitioner cannot be entertained as the appellant himself in the representation dated 23.12.1999 submitted that either the land be acquired or payment of compensation be made to him. Therefore, now the appellant cannot be permitted to make any grievance with regard to acquisition of land in question. So far as grievance of the appellant that notice under Section 28(6) of the Act was not served on him personally but was pasted on the land is concerned, suffice it to say that even if the same is accepted, it does invalidate the proceeding under the Act.In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, we do not any merit in the appeal. However, the same is disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to take recourse to seek remedy of enhancement of the compensation if so advised in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty the appeal is disposed of.