Case: P. Narayanappa  Vs. State Of Karnataka

where it is possible to take two views, is not something which affects the jurisdiction and it would therefore be proper to bear in mind the considerations of prejudice and injustice." It is necessary to emphasize that all the decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties deal with notifications issued under Land Acquisition Act and as demonstrated earlier, the Scheme of the Act under our consideration is different. Even on the principle laid down in the authorities which were cited by learned counsel for the parties and which have been discussed above, it cannot be held that the impugned notifications are vague or cryptic or that they suffer from any infirmity. The challenge raised to the notifications on the aforesaid grounds must fail. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the notification under Section 28(1) was published on 10.12.2001 and the notification under Section 28(4) was published on 23.10.2003 and thus there was a delay of more than 1 year and 10 months in publication of the second notification. As already discussed, the Scheme of the present Act is different and there is no similar provision like the one contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which lays down a period of limitation of one year for making a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, and the time gap being not very long, it is not possible to hold that the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act is invalid. 14. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has also submitted that Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (respondent no.9) were themselves owners of nearly 90 acres of land as three members of a family who were promoters and directors of the company had purchased agricultural land in the year 1995-96. They being not agriculturists, proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were initiated against them, whereunder the land would have been forfeited to the State Government without payment of any compensation. In order to save their land, they manipulated with the Government and got their own land acquired whereunder they would be entitled to compensation. It is thus submitted that the whole proceedings for acquisition of the land whereunder not only the land of promoters and directors of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. but also the land of the appellants, who are agriculturists, was acquired is clearly mala fide. This point has been considered in detail by the High Court and has been repelled. Initially, proceedings initiated under Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 against Devi Das Garg, one of the promoters of the company were dropped by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23.5.2001. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order of forfeiture of the land against Santosh Kumar Garg on 29.12.2002 and a similar order was passed against Devi Das Garg on 31.12.2003. It may be noted that the order for forfeiture of the land was passed much after the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act had been issued on 10.12.2001. That apart, the appellants herein are interested in saving their own land from acquisition and have no concern with the land belonging to promoters of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. They have not laid any foundation in the writ petition to show that the action of the State Government in acquiring their land was a mala fide one. Even assuming that the promoters of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. somehow succeeded in getting their own land acquired in order to save it from being forfeited by the State Government in view of the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, that by itself cannot be a ground to strike down the impugned notifications insofar as the land of the appellants is concerned. Shri Nageshwara Rao, learned senior counse for KIADB has also submitted that the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board has only executed a lease deed in favour of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. for a period of 11 years for a consideration of Rs.25,71,50,781/- and the lessee has to pay a rent of Rs.1,000/- per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land. The lease has been granted on stringent conditions and under clause 10(d) the lessor has the right to terminate the lease and resume the possession of the scheduled property in the event the lessee fails to implement the project within the stipulated period or extended period, if any. Clause 14 contains a condition that the lessor shall be entitled to determine the lease and resume possession of the land if and when there is breach of any of the covenants and obligations contained in the lease deed. The fact that the lease deed has been executed only for a limited period of 11 years clearly shows that the land after acquisition has not been reverted back to Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. conferring proprietary rights on them but they are merely lessees and the ownership and title thereof still vests with the Board. In such circumstances it is not possible to accept the plea of mala fide raised on behalf of the appellants. 15. It is lastly submitted that the State Government had acted in a discriminatory manner in de-notifying some of the lands which had been earlier included in the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act and whosoever was in a position to approach the concerned authority of the State Government, his land was exempted from acquisition. It has been urged that survey no.9/4 which was earlier included in the notification under Section 28(1) of the Act was specifically de-notified. We are afraid that this plea cannot be examined by us for want of sufficient details. The acquisition of the appellants land cannot be struck down on the ground that some of the land which was initially included in the notifications issued under Section 28 of the Act was de-notified.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Sub- section (1) of Section 28 clearly shows that the land can be acquired for (i) development by the Board; or (ii) for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act. Under sub-section (8) of Section 28, the State Government is empowered, after it has taken possession of land, to transfer the same to the Board for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. Section 32 empowers the State Government to place at the disposal of the Board any land vested in it and the Board is enjoined to deal with the land in accordance with the regulations made and directions given by the State Government in this behalf. This stage when the Board gets the authority to deal with the land comes at a later stage which is after the land has been developed by it. An entrepreneur or a company may give a proposal to the State Government for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility and the Government may thereafter acquire the land and give it to the Board. It is also possible that after the land has already been acquired and developed by the Board, it may be allotted to an entrepreneur or a company for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility. Therefore, the scheme of the Act does not show that at the time of acquisition of the land and issuing a preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the complete details of the nature of the industry or infrastructural facility proposed to be set up should also be mentioned. At that stage what is to be seen is whether the land is acquired for development by the Board or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of the Act, as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Act. In fact, if the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is accepted, it would mean that even at the stage of preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act, the nature of the activity which may be done by some entrepreneur or a company which may give a proposal for setting up an industry or infrastructural facility much after land has been acquired should also be taken note of and specifically mentioned in the notification, which is well nigh impossible. While interpreting the provisions of the Act, the Court should not only take into consideration the facts of the present case but should also have in mind all possible contingencies. Therefore, on a plain reading of the language used in the Act, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the impugned notification is vague or cryptic as the complete details of the project which was proposed to be established by Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. (respondent no.9) were not mentioned and on account of the aforesaid lacuna, the landowners were deprived of their right to make a proper representation or to show cause against the proposed acquisitionAs already discussed, the Scheme of the present Act is different and there is no similar provision like the one contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which lays down a period of limitation of one year for making a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. In absence of any specific provision to that effect in the Act, and the time gap being not very long, it is not possible to hold that the notification under Section 28(4) of the Act is invalidThey being not agriculturists, proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were initiated against them, whereunder the land would have been forfeited to the State Government without payment of any compensation. In order to save their land, they manipulated with the Government and got their own land acquired whereunder they would be entitled to compensation. It is thus submitted that the whole proceedings for acquisition of the land whereunder not only the land of promoters and directors of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. but also the land of the appellants, who are agriculturists, was acquired is clearly mala fide. This point has been considered in detail by the High Court and has been repelled. Initially, proceedings initiated under Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 against Devi Das Garg, one of the promoters of the company were dropped by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23.5.2001. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order of forfeiture of the land against Santosh Kumar Garg on 29.12.2002 and a similar order was passed against Devi Das Garg on 31.12.2003. It may be noted that the order for forfeiture of the land was passed much after the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Act had been issued on 10.12.2001. That apart, the appellants herein are interested in saving their own land from acquisition and have no concern with the land belonging to promoters of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. They have not laid any foundation in the writ petition to show that the action of the State Government in acquiring their land was a mala fide one. Even assuming that the promoters of Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. somehow succeeded in getting their own land acquired in order to save it from being forfeited by the State Government in view of the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, that by itself cannot be a ground to strike down the impugned notifications insofar as the land of the appellants is concernedThe lease has been granted on stringent conditions and under clause 10(d) the lessor has the right to terminate the lease and resume the possession of the scheduled property in the event the lessee fails to implement the project within the stipulated period or extended period, if any. Clause 14 contains a condition that the lessor shall be entitled to determine the lease and resume possession of the land if and when there is breach of any of the covenants and obligations contained in the lease deed. The fact that the lease deed has been executed only for a limited period of 11 years clearly shows that the land after acquisition has not been reverted back to Vikas Telecom (P) Ltd. conferring proprietary rights on them but they are merely lessees and the ownership and title thereof still vests with the Board. In such circumstances it is not possible to accept the plea of mala fide raised on behalf of the appellantsThe acquisition of the appellants land cannot be struck down on the ground that some of the land which was initially included in the notifications issued under Section 28 of the Act was de-notified.