K.P. Ravikumar vs The State of Karnataka and others. Writ Petition 9300/2020 decided on 28 September 2020.
Judgment Link http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/343172/1/WP9300-20-28-09-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though land was notified for acquisition in the year 1999, it has not been followed by issuance of final notification under Section 28(3) of ‘the Act’, 1966 till date. The impugned preliminary notification has lapsed by operation of law since the final notification which should have been issued within a reasonable time has not been issued till date.
10….The final notification will have to be issued within reasonable time, if period of limitation is not prescribed under the KIAD Act. In the instant case, even after a lapse of twenty years, final notification has not been issued. The decisions rendered in the case of M.N.Shivanna and Others supra and W.A.No.2402/2014 are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The impugned preliminary notification as such has lapsed by operation of law since the Respondents have abandoned the land from acquisition.
11. On the question of maintainability of the writ petition, learned counsel for KIADB has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case SHIV KUMAR & ANOTHER (2019) 10 SCC 229…..The view taken by the Apex Court was taken in the context of Section 11(3) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is akin to Section of 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . The said provision contains a prohibition that no person shall cause any transaction of land or create any encumbrance on the land specified in the preliminary notification without the prior permission of the competent authority.
12. ..Under the KIAD Act, there is no restriction for alienating the land specified in the preliminary notification. The Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991 which imposes restriction on transfer of lands applies only to Bangalore Development Act, 1976 and Karnataka Urban Development Act, 1987. Even assuming that the act is applicable to the proposed acquisition under KIAD Act, it is only after publication of declaration under Section 28(3) of the Act, the land specified in said final declaration cannot be transferred without the permission from the competent authority. Further, there cannot be an indefinite embargo on the owner of the land to alienate his land.
Preliminary notification quashed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 