Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka 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