After Finding 10 Years’ Land-Use Deprivation, Karnataka HC Upholds Acquisition Of Scheduled Caste Woman’s Land But Sets 2020 Compensation Valuation Date

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste landowner, challenged the acquisition of 6 acres 34 guntas in Sy. No. 111, Mudigerekaval village, for an industrial area.

The acquisition began with a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act), dated 24 April 2010, followed by a final notification dated 19 August 2010.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court quashed that final notification as to the petitioner’s land and directed reconsideration of her objections.

The objections were rejected in 2014; after further representations and a subsequent hearing, they were again rejected in 2019.

A fresh final notification was issued on 8 January 2020.

The petitioner sought to quash that notification, the revenue-entry changes, and the 2019 order, relying principally on her Scheduled Caste status and the delay in completing acquisition.

The respondents stated that possession had been taken and that compensation had not yet been determined

The Court considered Sections 28(1), 28(3), 28(4), 28(5) and 29(2) of the KIAD Act, which govern the acquisition process, including preliminary notification, consideration of objections, final notification, vesting and compensation.

It also referred to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as the basis for quantifying compensation and related benefits.

The Court relied on Franciscan Service Society of Bangalore v. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka for the approach of moving the relevant notification date for compensation where delay has deprived an owner of the use of land

The Court found no statutory basis in the KIAD Act or the 2013 Act for exempting land from acquisition solely because its owner belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

The cited government communication did not have statutory force, and excluding the petitioner’s 6 acres 34 guntas would affect the contiguity and compactness of the industrial area; accordingly, the acquisition could not be invalidated on that ground

However, the acquisition process had extended from 2010 to 2020, and the petitioner had been deprived of the use of her land during that period, including while the earlier final notification had been quashed.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the acquisition while adjusting the date for compensation

For determining compensation, the date of the preliminary notification was directed to be construed as 8 January 2020, the date of the final notification.

The petitioner was held entitled to compensation and benefits under the 2013 Act, with compensation to be determined and paid within three months of receipt of the order.

If she preferred developed land under the State Government’s policy dated 23 February 2021, KIADB was directed to consider that option after obtaining her consent