Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Land Acquisition Lapse – Failure to Acquire - Due to Unexplained 16-Year Delay: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the lapse of land acquisition proceedings due to an unexplained delay of 16 years. The case involved the Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) and landowners, K B Lingaraju & Ors. The Court's decision came in response to Special Leave Petitions arising from an impugned judgment by the High Court of Karnataka.

The High Court had quashed the final notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) on the grounds of unreasonable delay in its issuance. However, on appeal, the acquisition process was upheld, with a direction to determine the market value of the land as of the final notification date, which was 13.05.2005.

Despite approaching the Supreme Court, the landowners' claim was rejected on 18.01.2016. Notably, there was no interim stay granted by the Supreme Court during this period. Nevertheless, the petitioners chose to issue notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 26.05.2016, leading to a second round of litigation initiated by the expropriated landowners.

The Single Bench of the High Court held that the acquisition concerning certain landowners had lapsed due to the delay on the part of the petitioner/Board in passing the award. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed this view in the impugned judgment, citing a lack of explanation for the 7-year delay in concluding the land acquisition proceedings.

The Division Bench's observation stated, "Even after a period of 7 years from the date of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, i.e., on 16.12.2010, no action was taken by KIADB to conclude the proceeding of land acquisition. No explanation has been offered for the delay of 7 years in concluding the proceeding, which is fatal."

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the special leave petitions, reiterated the significant delay in the land acquisition proceedings, spanning from 2000 to 2016, and emphasized that there was no legal impediment for passing the award during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court. The Court also highlighted that the plea that possession had already been taken in 2010 was untenable and appeared to be in conflict with Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

This decision reaffirms the importance of timely land acquisition processes and highlights that unexplained delays can lead to lapses in such proceedings.

Date of Decision: 26-09-2023

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNAKATA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KIADB & ORS. vs K B LINGARAJU & ORS.                          

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Special_Land_Acquisition_Officer_vs_K_B_Lingaraju_on_26_September_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News