Land Acquisition and Requisition

Land Acquisition

— Preliminary notification — Under S. 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 — Validity — Notification must be for acquisition for development by KIAD Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of object of the Act — Creating facilities which contribute to the development of industries which may include technology parks, etc. as provided in definition of <169>industrial infrastructural facilities<170> in S. 2(7-a) would also meet the objective of the Act and acquisition for that purpose would be valid — At the stage of preliminary notification, detailed nature of the industry or infrastructural facility proposed to be set up after the acquisition are not required to be stated therein — Preliminary notification issued in this case stating that land required for establishment and development of industries by KIAD Board — Contention that the notification omitted to mention that the land was sought to be acquired for a company for setting up a software technology park, research and development centre, shopping mall, etc. which deprived the landowners of their right to make effective representation under S. 28(2) — Held, contention cannot be accepted as details of the project which was proposed to be established by the company need not be mentioned in the preliminary notification, (2006) 7 SCC 578-A

Land Acquisition and Requisition

Land Acquisition

— Notification making declaration — Under S. 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 — Delay and laches — S. 28(4) does not contain any period of limitation like that provided under proviso to S. 6(1) of Land Acquisition Act — Delay of 1 year and 10 months in publication of the second notification — Held, time-gap being not very long and there being no period of limitation in S. 28(4), notification cannot be held to be invalid, (2006) 7 SCC 578-B

Land Acquisition and Requisition

Land Acquisition

— Mala fides — Land acquired and leased to a company for development of industries — Allegation that in order to save the company's own land from forfeiture under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, company manipulated with the Govt. and got their own land acquired so as to get compensation and that thus the whole acquisition proceeding whereunder not only land of the company but land of appellants were acquired was mala fide — Held, allegation not made out on facts — Moreover, even accepting that the company succeeded in getting their own land acquired so as to avoid forfeiture, that itself cannot be a ground to strike down the acquisition notifications pertaining to appellants, (2006) 7 SCC 578-C

Land Acquisition and Requisition

Land Acquisition

— Discrimination — Plea that some lands, which had earlier been included in the preliminary notification, were denotified — Held, plea cannot be examined for want of sufficient detail — Acquisition of appellants' land cannot be struck down on ground of denotification of some land which was initially included in the notification, (2006) 7 SCC 578-D

Land Acquisition and Requisition

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (18 of 1966)

— S. 28 — Provisions for acquisition of land under — Different from provisions of Land Acquisition Act, (2006) 7 SCC 578-E

Land Acquisition and Requisition

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (18 of 1966)

— Preamble & S. 2(7-a) — Object of the Act, (2006) 7 SCC 578-F