Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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