Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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