Kalaburagi Landowners’ 12-Gunta Lapse Claim Fails As Karnataka HC Says 2013 Act Doesn’t Apply To KUDA Acquisitions

In brief

The question

Whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to an acquisition initiated under the KUDA Act.

The court held

The Court held that the acquisition had not been shown to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and that no good ground for interference was made out.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

01Facts

The petitioners claimed ownership of 12 guntas in Survey No. 42 (42/2), Badepur Village.

The State issued a preliminary acquisition notification on 8 September 1988 under Sections 15(1) and 15(3) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (“KUDA Act”), followed by a final notification under Section 19 on 17 November 1989, for the Gulbarga–Sedam Road Residential Layout Project.

p. 5

In a writ petition filed in 2017, the petitioners sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, alleging that possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid.

pp. 3–6

02Issues

i.Whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to an acquisition initiated under the KUDA Act.

p. 6

ii.Whether the petitioners established grounds for the Court to interfere with the acquisition proceedings.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The acquisition was initiated under Sections 15(1), 15(3), and 19 of the KUDA Act.

p. 5

The Court held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to acquisitions undertaken under the KUDA Act.

p. 6

It also relied on *Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal*, (2020) 4 SCC (Civ) 496, in considering the petitioners’ challenge.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 24

KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 Section 15 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on Section 24(2) because the acquisition had been conducted under the KUDA Act, to which, in the Court’s view, the 2013 Act’s lapse provision did not apply.

p. 6

It further noted that the authorities had issued a notice indicating that an award had been passed in respect of the acquired land.

p. 6

Having regard to that notice and the cited Supreme Court decision, the Court found no sufficient ground to entertain the petition.

p. 7

05Holding

The Court held that the acquisition had not been shown to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and that no good ground for interference was made out.

p. 7

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

p. 7

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF