Land Acquisition: Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) – s.28 – Persons interested – Proper party – Right of subsequent allottee to participate in reference proceedings – The lands of the appellants were acquired u/s.28(4) of the KIAD Act for establishment of industrial areas – Land Acquisition Officer after affording opportunity of hearing to the owners of the land passed award on 06.10.2009 – References made to the Reference Court at the instance of landowners – Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation – Respondent No.1 (MRPL) was allotted the land as a lessee by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) – MRPL preferred the appeals before High Court on the ground that it ought to have been heard by the Reference Court as it was beneficiary of the acquisition and under the agreement between the KIADB and MRPL, MRPL has to pay the additional amount of compensation – High Court held that MRPL can be said to be a ‘person interested’ and therefore, ought to have been heard before enhancing the amount of compensation – The matter was remanded back to Reference Court for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties including MRPL – On appeal, held: There is no reason to take a different view than the view taken in the case of *Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan v. State of Karnataka that MRPL being a subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of determination of compensation – The judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed.
Constitution of India: Art.141 – Binding Precedent – Held: Not following the binding precedents of Supreme Court by the High Court is contrary to Art.141 of the Constitution of India. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : The land has been acquired under the provisions of the KIAD Act, 1966 and the notification has been issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966. The land has been acquired by the State Government for KIADB under three different notifications. After the lands were acquired, respondent No.1 – MRPL has been allotted the lands acquired as per the agreements between the KIADB and the MRPL. The present is not an acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, as such, neither Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor any other provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be applicable with respect to the lands acquired under the provisions of the KIAD Act, 1966. There is no reason to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan that the MRPL being a subsequent allottee after the land was acquired by KIADB, can neither be said to be a beneficiary nor a “person interested” for the purpose of determination of compensation. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking a contrary view is unsustainable. [Paras 7, 7.6][106-F-H; 107-A-B; 115-D]
*Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan v. State of Karnataka (2015) 10 SCC 469 : [2015] 9 SCR 498 – relied on. Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor Countinho (Dead) By LRs’ (1980) 3 SCC 223 : [1980]
3 SCR 235; UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 326 : [1994]
4 Suppl. SCR 646 – distinguished.
Neelagangabai & Another v. State of Karnataka & Others (1990) 3 SCC 617 : [1990] 3 SCR 20; Neyvely Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely and Others (1995) 1 SCC 221 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 567; Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana (2017) 4 SCC 760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767; Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (2013) 10 SCC 95 : [2013] 17 SCR 345; Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC
197 : [2019] 2 SCR 24 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.