Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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